https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29369
--- Comment #6 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The binutils-2_39-branch branch has been updated by Alan Modra <amo...@sourceware.org>: https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=97acb51d6ac5b3e09b5817edc7a41678d96e945c commit 97acb51d6ac5b3e09b5817edc7a41678d96e945c Author: Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> Date: Mon Jul 25 09:25:49 2022 +0930 Re: PowerPC64 .branch_lt address On seeing PR29369 my suspicion was naturally on a recent powerpc64 change, commit 0ab80031430e. Without a reproducer, I spent time wondering what could have gone wrong, and while I doubt this patch would have fixed the PR, there are some improvements that can be made to cater for user silliness. I also noticed that when -z relro -z now sections are created out of order, with .got before .plt in the section headers but .got is laid out at a higher address. That's due to the address expression for .branch_lt referencing SIZEOF(.got) and so calling init_os (which creates a bfd section) for .got before the .plt section is created. Fix that by ignoring SIZEOF in exp_init_os. Unlike ADDR and LOADADDR which need to reference section vma and lma respectively, SIZEOF can and does cope with a missing bfd section by returning zero for its size, which of course is correct. PR 29369 * ldlang.c (exp_init_os): Don't create a bfd section for SIZEOF. * emulparams/elf64ppc.sh (OTHER_RELRO_SECTIONS_2): Revise .branch_lt address to take into account possible user sections with alignment larger than 8 bytes. (cherry picked from commit 5d471bd907be60e9858b22cdf4fd10ddc0f6ee1a) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.