[Bug ld/16787] LD gives wrong error messages
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16787 --- Comment #9 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn --- Created attachment 7541 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7541&action=edit glibc libs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/16787] LD gives wrong error messages
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16787 --- Comment #8 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #6) > Hi Ma, > Please could you upload the libc.a and libg.a files that you are > using. I have tried to find some on the net, but so far I have failed. :-( > Cheers > Nick Hi Nick, I have uploaded the two libs. You could also use the testcase uploaded by H.J. Lu, which does not need a special libc. Sorry to waste so much time on these trivial things. I thought glibc was easy to get... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/16787] LD gives wrong error messages
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16787 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/16787] LD gives wrong error messages
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16787 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/16787] LD gives wrong error messages
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16787 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #7512|0 |1 is obsolete|| Attachment #7523|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 7540 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7540&action=edit A testcase [hjl@gnu-6 pr16787]$ make gcc -B./ -g -c -o t1.o t1.c gcc -B./ -g -c -o t3.o t3.c ld -r -o t13.o t1.o t3.o gcc -B./ -g -c -o tt.o tt.c gcc -B./ -g -c -o t2.o t2.c gcc -B./ -o x t13.o tt.o t2.o t13.o: In function `t1': /export/home/hjl/bugs/binutils/pr16787/t1.c:2: warning: foobar t13.o: In function `t3': (.text+0x1a): undefined reference to `udf' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [x] Error 1 [hjl@gnu-6 pr16787]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/16821] x86_64 PE/COFF: ld truncates addresses of symbols from linker scripts to 32 bit
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16821 Cygwin/X maintainer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yselkowitz at cygwin dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/16821] New: x86_64 PE/COFF: ld truncates addresses of symbols from linker scripts to 32 bit
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16821
Bug ID: 16821
Summary: x86_64 PE/COFF: ld truncates addresses of symbols from
linker scripts to 32 bit
Product: binutils
Version: 2.25 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: corinna at vinschen dot de
I just encountered a serious bug while building the Cygwin DLL for
x86_64-pc-cygwin, which I never noticed before (*blush*):
The Cygwin DLL is built to be located at the address 0x1:8004,
so it's not located in the lower 32 bits area, but just a tad bit
higher. It's also using its own linker script.
When I tried to access __image_base__ from the DLL itself, I found
to my surprise that __image_base__ was not 0x1:8004, but instead
0x0:8004000, so it's truncated to 32 bit.
The only time __image_base__ occurs in the script is to compute the
start of the .text segment:
.text __image_base__ + __section_alignment__ :
{ ... }
Further investigation showed that four more symbols were affected:
.rdata ALIGN(__section_alignment__) :
{
*(.rdata)
*(SORT(.rdata$*))
*(.rdata_cygwin_nocopy)
__rt_psrelocs_start = .;
*(.rdata_runtime_pseudo_reloc)
__rt_psrelocs_end = .;
}
__rt_psrelocs_size = __rt_psrelocs_end - __rt_psrelocs_start;
___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST_END__ = .;
__RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST_END__ = .;
___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ = . - __rt_psrelocs_size;
__RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ = . - __rt_psrelocs_size;
In this piece of the script, the symbols ___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__
and __RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ have an address which is truncated
to 32 bit. If I change this code to
.rdata ALIGN(__section_alignment__) :
{
*(.rdata)
*(SORT(.rdata$*))
*(.rdata_cygwin_nocopy)
___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ = .;
__RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ = .;
*(.rdata_runtime_pseudo_reloc)
___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST_END__ = .;
__RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST_END__ = .;
}
the address of the two symbols is correct.
Additionally there are two symbols which are defined with the ABSOLUTE
macro:
_SYM (_cygheap_start) = ABSOLUTE(.);
[...]
_SYM (_cygheap_end) = ABSOLUTE(.);
Both symbols have the correct address, but again truncated to 32 bit.
If I change the script to not use ABSOLUTE
_SYM (_cygheap_start) = .;
[...]
_SYM (_cygheap_end) = .;
the 64 bit addresses are correct.
So it appears that during certain computations in ld, the addresses of
symbols are truncated to 32 bit values.
Given that x86_64 Cygwin executables are located at 0x1:0004 by
default, this means that *ALL* Cygwin executables are affected by this bug.
Any chance to fix this ASAP?
Thanks,
Corinna
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/16787] LD gives wrong error messages
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16787 --- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Ma, Please could you upload the libc.a and libg.a files that you are using. I have tried to find some on the net, but so far I have failed. :-( Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/16787] LD gives wrong error messages
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16787 --- Comment #5 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn --- Hi Nick, I'm using the 2.24 release.I tried to get the current mainline sources, but I found it was too hart to get them(when working in windows and behind a stupid firewall)... The toolchain you used have no definitions for "getgrgid", that is the reason why you do not get the same error as me.Could you find a glibc toolchain? As my first mail said, the warning for "getgrgid" is critical. I can reproduce this bug on gcc4.5.2+binutils2.21+glibc2.13 and gcc4.8.2+binutils2.24+glibc2.18. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gold/16788] Gold produces unbootable Linux kernel
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16788 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #20 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Undebuggable heisenbug. Closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
