[Bug gas/23938] should not free memory alloced in obstack by free()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23938 wuheng changed: What|Removed |Added Component|binutils|gas -- 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 binutils/23938] New: should not free memory alloced in obstack by free()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23938
Bug ID: 23938
Summary: should not free memory alloced in obstack by free()
Product: binutils
Version: 2.32 (HEAD)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: wu.heng at zte dot com.cn
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 11420
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11420&action=edit
free obstack memory use obstack_free()
void
s_xstab (int what)
{
int length;
char *stab_secname, *stabstr_secname;
static char *saved_secname, *saved_strsecname;
/* @@ MEMORY LEAK: This allocates a copy of the string, but in most
cases it will be the same string, so we could release the storage
back to the obstack it came from. */
stab_secname = demand_copy_C_string (&length);
...
if (saved_secname)
{
free (saved_secname);
free (saved_strsecname);
}
...
}
The var "saved_secname" in "s_xstab" function which pointed to the memory
alloced in obstack, should not be freed in line 441:"free (saved_secname);".
--
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/23937] powerpc64le local ifunc IRELATIVE relocs are wrong
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23937 --- Comment #2 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_31-branch branch has been updated by Alan Modra : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=0f494b01431de53959dd72ccfed06a01d5172e3f commit 0f494b01431de53959dd72ccfed06a01d5172e3f Author: Alan Modra Date: Fri Nov 30 15:34:11 2018 +1030 PR23937, powerpc64le local ifunc IRELATIVE relocs are wrong IFUNC resolvers must always be called via their global entry point. They will be called from ld.so rather than from the local executable. PR 23937 bfd/ * elf64-ppc.c (write_plt_relocs_for_local_syms): Don't add local entry offset for ifuncs. ld/ * testsuite/ld-powerpc/pr23937.d, * testsuite/ld-powerpc/pr23937.s: New test. * testsuite/ld-powerpc/powerpc.exp: Run it. (cherry picked from commit ba85c15dabe144e4bcee5a1b388b32bee10729e1) -- 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/23937] powerpc64le local ifunc IRELATIVE relocs are wrong
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23937 --- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Alan Modra : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=ba85c15dabe144e4bcee5a1b388b32bee10729e1 commit ba85c15dabe144e4bcee5a1b388b32bee10729e1 Author: Alan Modra Date: Fri Nov 30 15:34:11 2018 +1030 PR23937, powerpc64le local ifunc IRELATIVE relocs are wrong IFUNC resolvers must always be called via their global entry point. They will be called from ld.so rather than from the local executable. PR 23937 bfd/ * elf64-ppc.c (write_plt_relocs_for_local_syms): Don't add local entry offset for ifuncs. ld/ * testsuite/ld-powerpc/pr23937.d, * testsuite/ld-powerpc/pr23937.s: New test. * testsuite/ld-powerpc/powerpc.exp: Run 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/23937] powerpc64le local ifunc IRELATIVE relocs are wrong
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23937 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |2.32 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- Fixed. -- 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/23937] powerpc64le local ifunc IRELATIVE relocs are wrong
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23937 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc64le-linux Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra 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/23937] New: powerpc64le local ifunc IRELATIVE relocs are wrong
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23937 Bug ID: 23937 Summary: powerpc64le local ifunc IRELATIVE relocs are wrong Product: binutils Version: 2.32 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ld Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: amodra at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- With a brand new binutils and gcc, when I compile gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-4.c I see the call to magic() in main() going via a plt stub. There's an IRELATIVE reloc on the .iplt entry used by the stub. That's all as expected but the IRELATIVE reloc points at resolver+8. It should point at resolver+0. As it is, when ld.so calls the resolver func r2 will have ld.so's TOC pointer value and thus calculate the wrong offset to implementation(). -- 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/23935] New: ld.bfd does not rescan fat LTO archives to resolve plugin-added references
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23935
Bug ID: 23935
Summary: ld.bfd does not rescan fat LTO archives to resolve
plugin-added references
Product: binutils
Version: 2.32 (HEAD)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: vlad at ispras dot ru
Target Milestone: ---
#!/bin/sh -
cat > prog.c << EOF
#include
int main() { printf("hi\n"); return 0; }
EOF
cat > libfoo.c << EOF
#include
int puts(const char *s) { return 0; }
EOF
gcc -c -flto -fno-builtin -ffat-lto-objects libfoo.c -o libfoo.o
ar rcs libfoo.a libfoo.o
# gold="-fuse-ld=gold"
gcc -c -flto prog.c -o prog.o
gcc $gold -Wl,-emain -L. -static -nostdlib prog.o -lfoo
>From I gather that
in
the presence of LTO recompiled objects, the archives are supposed to be
rescanned automatically. This does not happen in the example above.
When LTOing prog.o, GCC transforms the printf call to a puts call. I expect
this
new call to see a resolution in libfoo.a. And it happens indeed, if one uses
Gold. Not so for the BFD linker:
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccvITLI4.ltrans0.ltrans.o: in function `main':
:(.text+0xc): undefined reference to `puts'
Notice the -ffat-lto-objects switch. Without it, libfoo.a would contain only
LTO bytecode and both linkers would error out. It seems, the logic is off
somewhere taking "contains LTO bytecode" for "contains only LTO bytecode".
--
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 binutils/23919] bfd doesn't handle ELF compressed data alignment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23919 Dmitry V. Levin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ldv at sourceware dot org -- 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/23933] gold_assert(len >= this->do_minimum_hole_size()) fails
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23933 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- It is caused by PR 23919 change. -- 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 binutils/23931] objdump -r often fails on pdp11 files
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23931 --- Comment #3 from Paul Koning --- Great. I agree fixing the check is best. I looked at the code but it wasn't clear to me how to do that, so I did the disable as a crude test. -- 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/23933] New: gold_assert(len >= this->do_minimum_hole_size()) fails
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23933 Bug ID: 23933 Summary: gold_assert(len >= this->do_minimum_hole_size()) fails Product: binutils Version: 2.32 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gold Assignee: ccoutant at gmail dot com Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com CC: ian at airs dot com Target Milestone: --- GCC 8.2 triggers gold_assert(len >= this->do_minimum_hole_size()); Breakpoint 1, gold::Output_fill_debug_info::do_write (this=0xcbbf10, of=0xc79010, off=12652, len=4) at /export/gnu/import/git/sources/binutils-gdb/gold/output.cc:2063 2063 gold_assert(len >= this->do_minimum_hole_size()); (gdb) call len $1 = 4 (gdb) p this->do_minimum_hole_size() $2 = 11 (gdb) -- 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/23929] Missing .note.gnu.property with -flto
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23929 --- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=ffd9e4d0225d45d1603d09e06151c388589e063f commit ffd9e4d0225d45d1603d09e06151c388589e063f Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu Nov 29 04:44:20 2018 -0800 elf: Don't merge .note.gnu.property section in IR .note.gnu.property section in IR inputs should be ignored. Don't merge them. PR ld/23929 * elf-properties.c (_bfd_elf_link_setup_gnu_properties): Don't merge .note.gnu.property section in IR inputs. -- 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 binutils/23928] ar crash within LLVMgold.so module
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23928 --- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Werner > I installed all necessary debug symbols; however, the very last call is > still shown as `??' in the backtrace (deep in dlopened stuff). What about the function before the '??'. That will probably give you a clue as to where the problem is occurring. > What do you > recommend to make ar and LLVMgold.so spit out more debugging information? Recompile them with the -g debugging option enabled. (I am guessing that they were compiled without it, at least in the environment that you are using). > BTW, what I would like to have for such situations is an option to disable > plugins with a command line option, for example `--plugin=""'. Sadly I do not believe that such an option exists. You can however capture the command line being used to invoke the plugin, and then just replay it with the plugin options removed. > Finally, where can I find a description of the differences between > `LLVMgold.so' and gcc's `liblto_plugin'? Even a more intensive search in > the internet didn't show up anything useful... I do not think that such a document exists. The only real recourse is to read the source code for each of them, and compare how they work. 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 binutils/23931] objdump -r often fails on pdp11 files
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23931 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||nickc at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Paul, Thanks for reporting this problem. Rather than disabling the check however, I thought it better to tweak it to allow for the fact that the internal representation of thr PDP11 relocs is larger than the external representation. 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 binutils/23931] objdump -r often fails on pdp11 files
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23931 --- Comment #1 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=8936f76804c2908e4abe911441dd03641204df9d commit 8936f76804c2908e4abe911441dd03641204df9d Author: Nick Clifton Date: Thu Nov 29 10:57:54 2018 + objdump: Fix check for corrupt reloc information, to allow for the fact that PDP11 relocs are bigger when in internal format. PR 23931 * objdump.c (dump_relocs_in_section): When checking for an unreasonable amount of relocs in a bfd, allow for the fact that the internal representation of a reloc may be bigger than the external representation. -- 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 binutils/23932] integer overflow causes an endless loop
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23932 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|interger overflow causes a |integer overflow causes an |endless loop|endless loop -- 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/23930] Problems linking objectfiles optimized for size (-Os)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23930 --- Comment #2 from Artem Savkov --- The workaround fixes both the reproducer and original kernel build for me. -- 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
