[Bug binutils/20343] Document how to use LTO
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20343 --- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to dilyan.palau...@aegee.org from comment #9) > When the bfd-plugins directory looks like: > > me@home:/usr/local/lib/bfd-plugins# ls -l > total 4 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root staff 14 Jul 21 15:11 LLVMgold.so -> ../LLVMgold.so > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root staff 71 Jul 10 17:56 liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0 -> > /usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.1.1/liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0* > > > How does "nm t.o" decide, if it shall open liblto_plugin or LLVMgold to > proceed the .o file? It tries them in alphabetic order. The first plugin that claims the object in question gets used. -- 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
Re: null deref in c++ demangler
On 2016.07.27 at 13:48 +0200, panc...@nopcode.org wrote: > pointed out by scan coverity > > fixed in my copy: > https://github.com/radare/radare2/commit/f2c0ad9edbba42039c4df692370524a724eee59f The demangler is part of libiberty and it is part of gcc. So please post your patch (inline in email) to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org. -- Markus ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/20343] Document how to use LTO
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20343 --- Comment #9 from dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org --- When the bfd-plugins directory looks like: me@home:/usr/local/lib/bfd-plugins# ls -l total 4 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root staff 14 Jul 21 15:11 LLVMgold.so -> ../LLVMgold.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root staff 71 Jul 10 17:56 liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0 -> /usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.1.1/liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0* How does "nm t.o" decide, if it shall open liblto_plugin or LLVMgold to proceed the .o file? Why does ld proceed in a different way? -- 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/17739] Assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-sh.c:4504 on sh4 when compiling Qt5
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17739 --- Comment #17 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #16) > *B..* . No, it does not. So my 2.26.1 patch will be useless. > *sigh* It does seem to build fine, however. The binutils Debian package with the patch applied has been building on qemu-sh4 for a while now. I still want to let it finish. > Adrian - is there any chance that you could switch to 2.27 and apply the > original patch ? Not sure whether I can build an upstream version of binutils on Debian without further patching. I will give it a try, but it may take a few days (including the test build of qtwebkit) before I will be able to provide feedback. Thanks, Adrian -- 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/17739] Assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-sh.c:4504 on sh4 when compiling Qt5
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17739 --- Comment #16 from Nick Clifton --- Hi H.J. >>> I would love to test this patch. Could you provide a version which applies >>> against 2.26.1? >> >> Here you go. > Does 2.26.1 support CHECK_RELOCS_AFTER_OPEN_INPUT? I only added it to 2.27. *B..* . No, it does not. So my 2.26.1 patch will be useless. *sigh* Adrian - is there any chance that you could switch to 2.27 and apply the original patch ? 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/17739] Assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-sh.c:4504 on sh4 when compiling Qt5
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17739 --- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #14) > Created attachment 9406 [details] > Proposed patch > > Hi Adrian, > > > I would love to test this patch. Could you provide a version which applies > > against 2.26.1? > > Here you go. > > Cheers > Nick Does 2.26.1 support CHECK_RELOCS_AFTER_OPEN_INPUT? I only added it to 2.27. -- 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
Re: null deref in c++ demangler
done. thanks > On 27 Jul 2016, at 15:44, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2016.07.27 at 13:48 +0200, panc...@nopcode.org wrote: >> pointed out by scan coverity >> >> fixed in my copy: >> https://github.com/radare/radare2/commit/f2c0ad9edbba42039c4df692370524a724eee59f > > The demangler is part of libiberty and it is part of gcc. > So please post your patch (inline in email) to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org. > > -- > Markus ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
null deref in c++ demangler
pointed out by scan coverity fixed in my copy: https://github.com/radare/radare2/commit/f2c0ad9edbba42039c4df692370524a724eee59f ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/20401] segfault in fini_reloc_cookie_rels() with --gc-sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20401 --- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton --- (In reply to Ozkan Sezer from comment #8) > It would be great if the fix goes into the 2.27 branch too. Done. :-) -- 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/20401] segfault in fini_reloc_cookie_rels() with --gc-sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20401 --- Comment #9 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_27-branch branch has been updated by Nick Clifton : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=492a7a54d688b511b0ed47c1f0ab054334a4b218 commit 492a7a54d688b511b0ed47c1f0ab054334a4b218 Author: Nick Clifton Date: Wed Jul 27 13:18:13 2016 +0100 Fix seg fault in linker when performing garbage collection on COFF based targets. PR ld/20401 bfd * coffgen.c (fini_reloc_cookie_rels): Check for the extistence of the coff_section_data before using it. -- 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/17739] Assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-sh.c:4504 on sh4 when compiling Qt5
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17739 --- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton --- Created attachment 9406 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9406&action=edit Proposed patch Hi Adrian, > I would love to test this patch. Could you provide a version which applies > against 2.26.1? Here you go. 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/17739] Assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-sh.c:4504 on sh4 when compiling Qt5
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17739 --- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Hi Nick! (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #12) > Right - please could someone try out this potential patch ? It works with > the > small testcase provided. But I am not an SH expert and I do not have an SH > Linux system in which to test it thoroughly. So I am asking for help. > > (...) > > If necessary I can provide a version of the patch made against the 2.26 or > 2.25 releases, although I suspect that this version (made against the > current mainline sources) should be able to be applied without too much > hassle. I would love to test this patch. Could you provide a version which applies against 2.26.1? I will then build a patched version of binutils in Debian and verify whether I will be able to build Qt5. Adrian -- 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/17739] Assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-sh.c:4504 on sh4 when compiling Qt5
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17739 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #12 from Nick Clifton --- Created attachment 9405 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9405&action=edit Proposed patch (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #11) > Ping? Right - please could someone try out this potential patch ? It works with the small testcase provided. But I am not an SH expert and I do not have an SH Linux system in which to test it thoroughly. So I am asking for help. The patch implement's H.J.Lu's suggestion of delaying check_relocs until after all the input files have been loaded, and linker garbage collection performed, which means that there is no need for a sweep pass to correct GOT entry counts. If necessary I can provide a version of the patch made against the 2.26 or 2.25 releases, although I suspect that this version (made against the current mainline sources) should be able to be applied without too much hassle. 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/20401] segfault in fini_reloc_cookie_rels() with --gc-sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20401 --- Comment #8 from Ozkan Sezer --- Many thanks. It would be great if the fix goes into the 2.27 branch too. Regards. -- 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/20401] segfault in fini_reloc_cookie_rels() with --gc-sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20401 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Ozkan, Thanks for the crt0.o file. With that I was able to reproduce the problem, confirm that your patch works, and track down the underlying issue - the relocations that are processed during garnage collection were not being cached, but the code in fini_reloc_cookie_rels was assuming that they were cached. I have now applied your patch, with an added comment explaining why the fix is needed. 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/20401] segfault in fini_reloc_cookie_rels() with --gc-sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20401 --- Comment #6 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=147d994bcdd36a177e49e7b6ac8d9c1f7b4cdcf5 commit 147d994bcdd36a177e49e7b6ac8d9c1f7b4cdcf5 Author: Nick Clifton Date: Wed Jul 27 10:49:32 2016 +0100 Fix seg-fault when running garbage collection on coff binaries. PR ld/20401 * coffgen.c (fini_reloc_cookie_rels): Check for the extistence of the coff_section_data before using it. -- 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
