Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: jason.vas.dias at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
When building the Fedora 37 'gcc-12.1.1.1-fc37.src.rpm' on a Ro
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #1 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Also, doing this, as root, solves the problem:
$ cd /usr/local/bin
$ mv ld not-ld
$ ln -s /opt/rh/gcc-toolset-11/root/usr/bin/ld ld
So this is why I raised the bug against binutils 2.38 in the firs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #2 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Does NOT happen when option is changed from
'-fcf-protection' to '-fcf-protection=check' -
'-fcf-protection=branch' and '-fcf-protection=full'
also trigger the bug.
So I COULD make GCC use this option
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #3 from Jason Vas Dias ---
OK, as root, if I install the binutils-local-debuginfo and
binutils-local-gold debuginfo RPMs, I can do :
$ cd /usr/local/bin
$ mv ld ld.bin
$ echo '#!/bin/bash
/usr/bin/gdb -q --batch-silent -ex 'se
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #4 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Oops, had not finished editing last line of previous comment:
gold/x86_64.c, line 6113 will become:
object->error(_("failed to match split-stack sequence at "
"section %u offset %0
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #5 from Jason Vas Dias ---
OK, with binutils 's gold/ld-new and libbfd recompiled with the
above error statement in gold/x86_64.cc, we get:
/usr/local/bin/ld: Unlocking file
"/home/jvd/rpmbuild/BUILD/gcc-12.1.1-20220507/obj-x86_64
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #6 from Jason Vas Dias ---
OK, now the error message printing code looks like this:
{
if (!object->has_no_split_stack())
{ unsigned char ib[16]={0};
if ( view )
{ ib[0] = *(((unsigned char*)view) +
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #7 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Aha! Am I right in thinking 'f3.0f.1e.fa' (hex byte string) specifies x86_64
instruction 'RDSSPD/RDSSPQ' ?
I think so ! :
>From Intel Software Developer's Manual (SDM), Book 2, Instructions,
Chapter 3
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #8 from Jason Vas Dias ---
So my best guess at a patch would currently be:
$ diff -U1 x86_64.cc~ x86_64.cc
--- x86_64.cc~ 2022-01-22 12:14:09.0 +
+++ x86_64.cc 2022-06-05 17:34:26.400079527 +0100
@@ -6050,2 +6050,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #9 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Oops, a better patch is given by :
$ gendiff gold \~
--- BEGIN PATCH
diff -up gold/i386.cc~ gold/i386.cc
--- gold/i386.cc~ 2022-06-05 02:23:38.826984954 +0100
+++ gold/i386.cc2022-06-05 17:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #10 from Jason Vas Dias ---
OK, I am now running the full binutils test suite with the above
patch applied, which DOES at least make the gcc build now work OK.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #11 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Hmm, close but no cigar - the test suite now bombs out at :
`echo g++ -W -Wall-Wstack-usage=262144 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -fmerge-constants -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects
-fexc
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #12 from Jason Vas Dias ---
I will try with the last 'return' INSIDE the clause:
+);
+return;
+ }
}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
||jason.vas.dias at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13 from Jason Vas Dias ---
OK, I discovered the SAME test fails completely without either of my
patches, but BOTH allow the particular GCC build I was trying to succeed -
I'm going with the last one :
---BEGIN PATCH
diff -up gold
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
--- Comment #15 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Created attachment 14131
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14131&action=edit
gcc-12-local.spec
--- Comment #16 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Created attachment 14132
--> https://sourc
cover that the view+offset points
to an 'rdssp' instruction ?
Best Regards,
Jason Vas Dias, a Software+Embedded Systems (VOIP) Engineer,
West Cork, Ireland
+353 84 874 9040
On 05/06/2022, jason.vas.dias at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29226
16 matches
Mail list logo
