[Bug binutils/5233] objcopy won't change section flags on zero file-size sections

2007-11-12 Thread amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-11-13 05:58 --- http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2007-11/msg00062.html -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug ld/5239] /usr/lib/milli.a is not searched from sysroot

2007-11-12 Thread amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-11-13 04:26 --- I bet it will. Replace the string /usr/lib/pa20_64/milli.a with -lmilli in ld/configure.host. Does that help? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5239 --- You are receiving this ma

Re: binutils-2.18 on Solaris 2.6 - ld_elf32_sparc_emulation

2007-11-12 Thread Alan Modra
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:23:39PM -0800, Gary E Barnes wrote: >local lineno=$[${BASH_LINENO[0]} + 1] > > That line produced "../../binutils-2.18/ld/genscripts.sh: > ${BASH_LINENO[0]} + 1: bad substitution" messages but nothing failed (make > saw no error status). Should be fixed in current

Re: binutils-2.18/configure and makeinfo

2007-11-12 Thread Alan Modra
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:03:09PM -0800, Gary E. Barnes wrote: > It thinks that 4.11 is lower than 4.4 This bug has been fixed. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mail

Re: binutils-2.18 on Solaris 2.6 - ld_elf32_sparc_emulation

2007-11-12 Thread Gary E Barnes
That is what it was. Thank you. There is a line in genscripts.sh that says, local lineno=$[${BASH_LINENO[0]} + 1] That line produced "../../binutils-2.18/ld/genscripts.sh: ${BASH_LINENO[0]} + 1: bad substitution" messages but nothing failed (make saw no error status). If I change that li

binutils-2.18/configure and makeinfo

2007-11-12 Thread Gary E. Barnes
>From the configure script... case " $build_configdirs " in *" texinfo "*) MAKEINFO='$$r/$(BUILD_SUBDIR)/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo' ;; *) # For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4.4 or # higher, else we use the "missing" dummy. if ${M

[Bug binutils/5299] Duplicated sections for COFF/PE

2007-11-12 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-11-12 22:02 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolut

Re: binutils-2.18 on Solaris 2.6 - ld_elf32_sparc_emulation

2007-11-12 Thread Andreas Schwab
"Gary E. Barnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The ld-new executable (module ldemul.o) expects ld_elf32_sparc_emulation to > come from somewhere. It apparently does not exist. The only two places in > the source code where that name is present are both in ldemul-list.h. > > ./ld/ldemul-list.h:2:

Re: binutils-2.18 on Solaris 2.6 - ld_elf32_sparc_emulation

2007-11-12 Thread Alan Modra
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 11:39:18AM -0800, Gary E. Barnes wrote: > > The ld-new executable (module ldemul.o) expects ld_elf32_sparc_emulation to > come from somewhere. It apparently does not exist. The only two places in > the source code where that name is present are both in ldemul-list.h. > >

Re: reversal of fsubp and fsubrp

2007-11-12 Thread Alan Modra
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:03:23AM -0800, dancie wrote: > I have noticed when debugging with gdb that the opcode "de e9" that (in intel > syntax) gdb gives out fsubrp st1,st0. > But according to the intel docs this fsubp st1,st0. I have also noticed that > the opcode for fsubrp st1,st0 gives out >

binutils-2.18 on Solaris 2.6 - ld_elf32_sparc_emulation

2007-11-12 Thread Gary E. Barnes
The ld-new executable (module ldemul.o) expects ld_elf32_sparc_emulation to come from somewhere. It apparently does not exist. The only two places in the source code where that name is present are both in ldemul-list.h. ./ld/ldemul-list.h:2:extern ld_emulation_xfer_type ld_elf32_sparc_emulation

reversal of fsubp and fsubrp

2007-11-12 Thread dancie
I have noticed when debugging with gdb that the opcode "de e9" that (in intel syntax) gdb gives out fsubrp st1,st0. But according to the intel docs this fsubp st1,st0. I have also noticed that the opcode for fsubrp st1,st0 gives out fsubp st1,st0. I have not yet tried the other reverse pop instru

[Bug binutils/5299] Duplicated sections for COFF/PE

2007-11-12 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-11-12 14:37 --- The updated patch is posted at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-11/msg00116.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5299 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC

[Bug binutils/5307] objcopy PE<->EFI doesn't work when both PE/EFI are enabled

2007-11-12 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-11-12 14:12 --- A patch is posted at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-11/msg00115.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5307 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for

[Bug gas/5269] Cryptic Note-messages to translate in gas-2.17.90.fi.po

2007-11-12 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-11-12 10:56 --- Hi Jorma, OK, I will apply the uploaded patch to improve the wording of the FRV specific --help output from GAS. Cheers Nick gas/ChangeLog 2007-11-12 Nick Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR gas/5269

[Bug gas/5269] Cryptic Note-messages to translate in gas-2.17.90.fi.po

2007-11-12 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-11-12 10:54 --- Created an attachment (id=2084) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2084&action=view) Rewrite FRV specific section of gas --help output -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5269