Matthew Gretton-Dann writes:
> On 17 December 2013 08:45, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> wrote:
>> Cool. Would it be useful to report the bug in
>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ as well?
>
> Yes please.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16340
Cheers,
mwh
On 17/12/13 20:38, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
> +Ryan, +Kugan,
>
> On 17 December 2013 08:45, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> wrote:
>> Will Newton writes:
>>
>>> On 17 December 2013 07:53, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>> wrote:
Ah... found it! This is the code that determines the offset to patch
i
+Ryan, +Kugan,
On 17 December 2013 08:45, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> Will Newton writes:
>
>> On 17 December 2013 07:53, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>> wrote:
>>> Ah... found it! This is the code that determines the offset to patch
>>> into the code (elfnn-aarch64.c line 3845):
>>>
>>> value
Will Newton writes:
> On 17 December 2013 07:53, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> wrote:
>> Ah... found it! This is the code that determines the offset to patch
>> into the code (elfnn-aarch64.c line 3845):
>>
>> value = (symbol_got_offset (input_bfd, h, r_symndx)
>>+ globals->root.
On 17 December 2013 07:53, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
>
>> Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
>>
>>> Will Newton writes:
>>>
On 16 December 2013 03:36, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
>
>> Aaah, you might be onto somet
Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
> Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
>
>> Will Newton writes:
>>
>>> On 16 December 2013 03:36, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>> wrote:
Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
> Aaah, you might be onto something there. I built myself a cross gcc-4.8
> today and it appea
Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
> Will Newton writes:
>
>> On 16 December 2013 03:36, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>> wrote:
>>> Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
>>>
Aaah, you might be onto something there. I built myself a cross gcc-4.8
today and it appeared to compile things correctly (I didn't
Will Newton writes:
> On 16 December 2013 03:36, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> wrote:
>> Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
>>
>>> Aaah, you might be onto something there. I built myself a cross gcc-4.8
>>> today and it appeared to compile things correctly (I didn't actually get
>>> to run it, but the objd
On 16 December 2013 03:36, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
>
>> Aaah, you might be onto something there. I built myself a cross gcc-4.8
>> today and it appeared to compile things correctly (I didn't actually get
>> to run it, but the objdump poking looked right) and I
On 16 Dec 2013 16:37, "Michael Hudson-Doyle"
wrote:
>
> Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
>
> > Aaah, you might be onto something there. I built myself a cross gcc-4.8
> > today and it appeared to compile things correctly (I didn't actually get
> > to run it, but the objdump poking looked right) and
Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
> Aaah, you might be onto something there. I built myself a cross gcc-4.8
> today and it appeared to compile things correctly (I didn't actually get
> to run it, but the objdump poking looked right) and I got a bit worried
> that this was all down to some cosmic ray
Will Newton writes:
> On 12 December 2013 23:14, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> wrote:
>> Will Newton writes:
>>
>>> On 12 December 2013 21:59, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>> wrote:
Will Newton writes:
>>
>> [snp]
>>
> I would guess that 0x64c000 is the base of the GOT and 776 is the
> off
On 12 December 2013 23:14, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> Will Newton writes:
>
>> On 12 December 2013 21:59, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>> wrote:
>>> Will Newton writes:
>
> [snp]
>
I would guess that 0x64c000 is the base of the GOT and 776 is the
offset into it (but I could be wrong).
Will Newton writes:
> On 12 December 2013 21:59, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> wrote:
>> Will Newton writes:
[snp]
>>> I would guess that 0x64c000 is the base of the GOT and 776 is the
>>> offset into it (but I could be wrong). objdump -h will give you the
>>> layout of the sections, objdump -R
On 12 December 2013 21:59, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> Will Newton writes:
>
>> On 12 December 2013 21:02, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the respsonse.
>>>
>>> Will Newton writes:
>>>
On 12 December 2013 08:00, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
Will Newton writes:
> On 12 December 2013 21:02, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the respsonse.
>>
>> Will Newton writes:
>>
>>> On 12 December 2013 08:00, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>>> wrote:
Hi all,
I have a bit of a strange one. I'm not after a full solution
On 12 December 2013 21:02, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the respsonse.
>
> Will Newton writes:
>
>> On 12 December 2013 08:00, Michael Hudson-Doyle
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have a bit of a strange one. I'm not after a full solution, just any
>>> hints that quickly com
Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
> I guess I don't understand the adrp code. My understanding is that:
>
> 0x004b4b78 <+12>:adrpx0, 0x64c000
>
> would result in 0x4b4000 + 0x64c000 in x0 and then
>
> 0x004b4b7c <+16>:ldr x0, [x0,#776]
>
> reads from 0x4b4000 + 0x64c00
Hi,
Thanks for the respsonse.
Will Newton writes:
> On 12 December 2013 08:00, Michael Hudson-Doyle
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a bit of a strange one. I'm not after a full solution, just any
>> hints that quickly come to mind :)
>>
>> After a few simple patches I have a build of mongodb
On 12 December 2013 08:00, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a bit of a strange one. I'm not after a full solution, just any
> hints that quickly come to mind :)
>
> After a few simple patches I have a build of mongodb for aarch64 (built
> with gcc-4.8). However, all of the test b
20 matches
Mail list logo
