On Monday 21 November 2022 08:24:36 Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.11.2022 14:10, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Saturday 05 November 2022 02:26:52 Pali Rohár wrote: > >> On Saturday 05 November 2022 01:57:49 Pali Rohár wrote: > >>> On Monday 31 October 2022 10:55:59 Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 30.10.2022 02:06, Pali Rohár via Binutils wrote: > >>>>> * GCC or LD (not sure who) sets memory alignment characteristics > >>>>> (IMAGE_SCN_ALIGN_MASK) into the sections of PE executable binary. > >>>>> These characteristics should be only in COFF object files, not > >>>>> executable binaries. Specially they should not be in NT kernel > >>>>> drivers. > >>>> > >>>> Like Martin pointed out in reply for another item, I'm pretty sure > >>>> this one was taken care of in bfd already (and iirc is in 2.39). You > >>>> fail to mention at all what versions of the various components you > >>>> use. > >>> > >>> Ou, sorry for that. I take care to write issues in all details and > >>> totally forgot to write such important information like tool versions. > >>> > >>> Now I retested all issues on Debian 11 which has LD 2.35.2 and GCC > >>> 10.2.1 and all issues are there still valid except data characteristic > >>> IMAGE_SCN_CNT_INITIALIZED_DATA for code sections IMAGE_SCN_CNT_CODE. > >>> > >>> I can easily retest it with LD 2.39 and GCC 10.3.0 which is in Debian > >>> testing. > >> > >> Retested with LD 2.39 and GCC 10.3.0 which is in Debian testing and > >> following problems are additionally fixed: --exclude-all-symbols, > >> --dynamicbase and IMAGE_SCN_ALIGN_MASK (which you mentioned above). All > >> other still reminds. > >> > >> Do you need some other information? > > > > Hello! I would like to ask if you need some other details or something > > else for these issues. > > Well, generally speaking it might help if you could provide smallish > testcases for every item individually.
I have already provided simple test case - simple driver - it is linked in the first email. > But then, with you replying to > me specifically, perhaps you're wrongly assuming that I would be > planning to look into addressing any or all of these? My earlier reply > was merely to point out that _some_ work has already been done ... I added into CC also gcc, ld and mingw mailing list. If this is not enough, could you tell me who to contact about those issues?
