[Bug ld/2524] Solaris versioning glitches when building shared libraries against static ones
--- Additional Comments From andyjstormont at googlemail dot com 2009-10-03 17:59 --- I can confirm this bug exists on i386-pc-solaris2.11. One work-around I have found is making -lpthread the first argument, this is very hacky but works. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2524 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6431] ld says: invalid version 3 (max 0)
--- Additional Comments From andyjstormont at googlemail dot com 2009-10-07 07:37 --- (In reply to comment #13) > found a workaround!!! ... it seems that on sol10, all pthread_XXX stuff is now > in libc.so. if you remove the -lpthread -thread options when glib compiles, > everything looks good. > > for me (not a binutils/linker expert) it looks as /lib/libpthread.so.1 on > solaris10 only contains references, but /lib/libc.so.1 contains the real code: > === > $ nm /lib/libc.so.1 | grep pthread_mutex_unlock > 000bdf98 W _pthread_mutex_unlock > 000bdf98 W pthread_mutex_unlock > === > maybe ld should just skip those > === > $ nm /lib/libpthread.so.1 | grep pthread_mutex_unlock > SunOS 5.10 sun4u sparc > A _pthread_mutex_unlock > A pthread_mutex_unlock > === > "empty" functions in /lib/libpthread.so.1 and check/use the other libraries > ... > > anyone out there who hack this is? That doesn't really help if you are using glibc, in that case moving -lpthread to the front does the trick. The real problem is still there though. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6431 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/11938] New: Support for linking with Solaris libraries is only enabled on SPARC!
Hi, First of all I would like to say thanks a lot for finally getting support for SHF_ORDERED, SHF_EXCLUDE, SHN_BEFORE and SHN_AFTER included so that binutils can link correctly with the funky libs in Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris. There is one slight problem though: This is only enabled on SPARC. If you could remove the switch-case blocks that check for EM_SPARC* (binutils/readelf.c, bfd/elf.c, bfd/elfcode.h) and replace them just a simple #ifdef __sun, #endif, that would probably fix the problem. The changes are simple enough but if you want me to come up with a patch just ask. -- Summary: Support for linking with Solaris libraries is only enabled on SPARC! Product: binutils Version: 2.20 Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: andyjstormont at googlemail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org GCC build triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11 GCC host triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11 GCC target triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11938 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6431] ld says: invalid version 3 (max 0)
--- Additional Comments From andyjstormont at googlemail dot com 2010-08-21 20:56 --- This problem is not SPARC specific. I see it on i386-pc-solaris2.11. I also suspect that it is not Solaris specific either as it seems to be caused by filter symbols not being interpreted correctly by binutils. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6431 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/2524] Solaris versioning glitches when building shared libraries against static ones
--- Additional Comments From andyjstormont at googlemail dot com 2010-08-21 20:59 --- *** Bug 6431 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added CC||niki dot waibel at gmx dot ||net http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2524 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6431] ld says: invalid version 3 (max 0)
--- Additional Comments From andyjstormont at googlemail dot com 2010-08-21 20:59 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 2524 *** -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6431 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/11938] Support for linking with Solaris libraries is only enabled on SPARC!
--- Additional Comments From andyjstormont at googlemail dot com 2010-09-08 17:04 --- Right. I guess the only two ways forward are to either remove the arch checks all together or to add i[34]86 to the list of arches where this code is used. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11938 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/11938] Support for linking with Solaris libraries is only enabled on SPARC!
--- Additional Comments From andyjstormont at googlemail dot com 2010-09-09 12:35 --- The binutils sources I grabbed from Debian doesn't :\ I must have an old copy. -- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11938 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/1021] linking in mozilla fails
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1021 Andrew Stormont changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andyjstormont at googlemail ||dot com --- Comment #15 from Andrew Stormont 2011-09-15 21:28:27 UTC --- There are two issues here. The original problem (see comment 1) mozilla/dist/bin/libnspr4.so: undefined reference to `fcntl@SUNW_0.9' mozilla/dist/bin/libnspr4.so: undefined reference to `dlsym@SUNW_0.7' mozilla/dist/bin/libnspr4.so: undefined reference to `pthread_join@SUNW_0.9' mozilla/dist/bin/libnspr4.so: undefined reference to `select@SUNW_1.2' mozilla/dist/bin/libnspr4.so: undefined reference to `rw_unlock@SUNW_0.9' mozilla/dist/bin/libnspr4.so: undefined reference to `pthread_attr_destroy@SUNW_ Was due to the fact that bfd ignored versions on all absolute symbols. This is fixed. The second problem (see comment 12) /opkg/bin/gcc -shared -Wl,-h,libplds4.so,-z,combreloc,-z,defs -o libplds4.so -Wl ,--version-script,./pldsmap.sun ./plarena.o ./plhash.o ./plvrsion.o -L/u/projec ts/tmp/opkg/mozilla/dist/lib -lnspr4 -lc /opkg/bin/ld: /u/projects/tmp/opkg/mozilla/dist/lib/libnspr4.so: open64: invalid version 23 (max 7) /u/projects/tmp/opkg/mozilla/dist/lib/libnspr4.so: could not read symbols: Bad v alue This is due the the fact that bfd gets confused and writes a duff open64 symbol to libnspr4.so which causes then next part of the build to fail. I've tried to build with and without mapfile and it makes no difference. And this is with the lastest binutils from git. Here is the output from readelf: # readelf -s ./mozilla/nsprpub/dist/bin/libnspr4.so | grep open64 536: 240 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT ABS open64@@NSPR_4.8.9 1352: 240 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT ABS open64@@SUNW_1.1 This is what it looks like on Linux: # readelf -s /usr/lib/libnspr4.so | grep open64 84: 0 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT UND open64@GLIBC_2.2.5 (3) -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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/1021] linking in mozilla fails
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1021 Andrew Stormont changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amu at alum dot mit.edu --- Comment #16 from Andrew Stormont 2011-09-15 22:11:34 UTC --- *** Bug 2524 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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/2524] Solaris versioning glitches when building shared libraries against static ones
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2524 Andrew Stormont changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC||andyjstormont at googlemail ||dot com Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Andrew Stormont 2011-09-15 22:11:34 UTC --- Marking as duplicate of 1021. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1021 *** -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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/1021] bfd links incorrectly on solaris
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1021 Andrew Stormont changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|linking in mozilla fails|bfd links incorrectly on ||solaris -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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/1021] bfd links incorrectly on solaris
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1021 --- Comment #17 from Andrew Stormont 2011-09-17 23:30:16 UTC --- Some more output that might be useful. Solaris: # readelf -a ./mozilla/nsprpub/dist/lib/libnspr4.so | grep open64 0002d204 00021706 R_386_GLOB_DAT open64 535: 240 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT ABS open64@@NSPR_4.8.9 1351: 240 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT ABS open64@@SUNW_1.1 # readelf -a /lib/libc.so | grep open64 21: 00071378 140 FUNCGLOBAL PROTECTED 15 attropen64 70: 000a56f857 FUNCGLOBAL PROTECTED 15 fopen64 332: 00071378 140 FUNCWEAK PROTECTED 15 _attropen64 874: 000a5978 290 FUNCGLOBAL PROTECTED 15 freopen64 950: 000bff10 240 FUNCWEAK PROTECTED 15 _open64 1062: 000bff10 240 FUNCGLOBAL PROTECTED 15 open64 364: 000a958853 FUNCLOCAL HIDDEN15 __open64 5937: 00071378 140 FUNCGLOBAL PROTECTED 15 attropen64 5986: 000a56f857 FUNCGLOBAL PROTECTED 15 fopen64 6248: 00071378 140 FUNCWEAK PROTECTED 15 _attropen64 6790: 000a5978 290 FUNCGLOBAL PROTECTED 15 freopen64 6866: 000bff10 240 FUNCWEAK PROTECTED 15 _open64 6978: 000bff10 240 FUNCGLOBAL PROTECTED 15 open64 21: attropen64 SELFDIRECT 70: fopen64 SELFDIRECT 332: _attropen64 SELFDIRECT 874: freopen64 SELFDIRECT 950: _open64 SELFDIRECT 1062: open64 SELFDIRECT Linux: # readelf -a /usr/lib/libnspr4.so | grep open64 00237f28 00540006 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT open64 + 0 84: 0 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT UND open64@GLIBC_2.2.5 (3) # readelf -a /lib/libc.so.6 | grep open64 292: 000dd49033 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT 12 __open64_2@@GLIBC_2.7 533: 000d812094 FUNCWEAK DEFAULT 12 __open64@@GLIBC_2.2.5 858: 000d812094 FUNCWEAK DEFAULT 12 open64@@GLIBC_2.2.5 1094: 0006cd90 606 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT 12 freopen64@@GLIBC_2.2.5 1948: 0006858010 FUNCWEAK DEFAULT 12 fopen64@@GLIBC_2.2.5 At first glance it looks as if bfd is having problems with the STV_PROTECTED symbols in solaris libc and is mistakenly marking them as local and copying them into the output file. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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/1021] bfd links incorrectly on solaris
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1021 Andrew Stormont changed: What|Removed |Added Version|2.16|2.22 (HEAD) -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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/1021] bfd links incorrectly on solaris
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1021 --- Comment #18 from Andrew Stormont 2011-09-28 15:19:26 UTC --- I have $100 for anybody that can provide a patch to solve this issue. I think it should be fairly simple if you know your way around BFD. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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
