[Bug gas/22773] [ARM] Invalid immediate constants produce incorrect instructions

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22773 --- Comment #4 from Jeroen Koops --- Hi Nick, thanks for the fix! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http

[Bug ld/22832] 2.30 internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/elflink.c:9710 in elf_link_output_extsym

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22832 --- Comment #7 from James Clarke --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #6) > (In reply to James Clarke from comment #4) > > Note that gold also falls foul of this, giving "gold: internal error in > > tls_get_addr_sym, at ../.

[Bug ld/22836] "-r -s" doesn't work with -g3 using GCC 7

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22836 --- Comment #4 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=60f763ee16fca2cd1ec9fa6960f765de9b26ef70 commit 60f763ee16fca2cd1ec9fa6960f76

[Bug gas/22445] Error: no such instruction: `vpcmplew

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22445 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ld/22845] New: -z separate-code doesn't work right

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22845 Bug ID: 22845 Summary: -z separate-code doesn't work right Product: binutils Version: 2.31 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ld

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #9 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola --- (In reply to Cary Coutant from comment #8) > I still believe that the linker is working as intended. If you want the > address of the PLT entry, use the PLT32 reloc. Why should -pie make a dif

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rafael Ávila de Espíndola from comment #9) > (In reply to Cary Coutant from comment #8) > > I still believe that the linker is working as intended. If you want the > > address of the PLT entry, use

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #9 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola --- (In reply to Cary Coutant from comment #8) > I still believe that the linker is working as intended. If you want the > address of the PLT entry, use the PLT32 reloc. Why should -pie make a dif

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #8 from Cary Coutant --- I still believe that the linker is working as intended. If you want the address of the PLT entry, use the PLT32 reloc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rafael Ávila de Espíndola from comment #6) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5) > > (In reply to Rafael Ávila de Espíndola from comment #4) > > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > > > > >

[Bug gold/22844] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22844 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug gold/22844] New: Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22844 Bug ID: 22844 Summary: Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: UNCONFI

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #6 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5) > (In reply to Rafael Ávila de Espíndola from comment #4) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > > > > > Should I close the bug and open a new one f

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rafael Ávila de Espíndola from comment #4) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > > Should I close the bug and open a new one for gold or just reassign this one? Please leave it open for now u

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #4 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > (In reply to Rafael Ávila de Espíndola from comment #2) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > > > Created attachment 10816 [details] > > > A patch

[Bug ld/22836] "-r -s" doesn't work with -g3 using GCC 7

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22836 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |2.31 -- You are receiving this mail becaus

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rafael Ávila de Espíndola from comment #2) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > > Created attachment 10816 [details] > > A patch > > > > Please try this. > > The runtime warning is gone, but

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #2 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > Created attachment 10816 [details] > A patch > > Please try this. The runtime warning is gone, but I still get two different values for the address: $

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ld/22842] Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 10816 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10816&action=edit A patch Please try this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/22843] New: Provide dependency information from the linker similar to the compiler

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22843 Bug ID: 22843 Summary: Provide dependency information from the linker similar to the compiler Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: UNCONFIRMED Seve

[Bug gas/22791] PLT32 should be used for 32-bit PC-relative branches

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22791 --- Comment #22 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21) > (In reply to Rafael Ávila de Espíndola from comment #20) > > Note that while the assembler change is a nice improvement, the original > > issue still e

[Bug ld/22842] New: Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22842 Bug ID: 22842 Summary: Handling of R_X86_64_PC32 in a PIE against a function in a shared library could be better Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: UNCONFI

[Bug gas/22791] PLT32 should be used for 32-bit PC-relative branches

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22791 --- Comment #20 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola --- Note that while the assembler change is a nice improvement, the original issue still exists. In the testcase that I attached before, the call to foo is now assembled to R_X86_64_PLT32, but

[Bug gas/22791] PLT32 should be used for 32-bit PC-relative branches

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22791 --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rafael Ávila de Espíndola from comment #20) > Note that while the assembler change is a nice improvement, the original > issue still exists. > > In the testcase that I attached before, the call to

[Bug gas/22773] [ARM] Invalid immediate constants produce incorrect instructions

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22773 --- Comment #2 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=db7bf1058d28b2b5e931c60435a13f6db15df6af commit db7bf1058d28b2b5e931c60435a

[Bug gas/22773] [ARM] Invalid immediate constants produce incorrect instructions

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22773 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug gas/22445] Error: no such instruction: `vpcmplew

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22445 --- Comment #1 from Cameron McInally --- This issue appears to have been fixed with binutils-2.30. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils maili

[Bug gold/22838] Incorrect linking for try-catch statement for target MIPS32 R2 little endian.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22838 --- Comment #1 from whynot66 at icloud dot com --- Your Apple ID Verification Code is: 598922 Jacob I -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils m

[Bug binutils/22809] Segmentation fault in bfd_section_from_shdr

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22809 --- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton --- Created attachment 10814 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10814&action=edit Proposed patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. __

[Bug binutils/22809] Segmentation fault in bfd_section_from_shdr

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22809 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug gas/22791] PLT32 should be used for 32-bit PC-relative branches

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22791 --- Comment #18 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=bd7ab16b4537788ad53521c45469a1bdae84ad4a commit bd7ab16b4537788ad53521c45469a1b

[Bug gas/22791] PLT32 should be used for 32-bit PC-relative branches

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22791 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ld/22828] [patch] incorrect format string in ru.po causes SIGSEGVs on warnings

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22828 --- Comment #2 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=80c96350467f23a54546580b3e2b67a65ec65b66 commit 80c96350467f23a54546580b3e2

[Bug ld/22828] [patch] incorrect format string in ru.po causes SIGSEGVs on warnings

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22828 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug binutils/22823] bfd/libbfd.h:268:4: error: cast between incompatible function types from ‘bfd_boolean (*)(bfd *)’ {aka ‘int (*)(struct bfd *)’} to ‘bfd_boolean (*)(bfd *, bfd *)’ {aka ‘int (*)(st

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22823 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug binutils/22823] bfd/libbfd.h:268:4: error: cast between incompatible function types from ‘bfd_boolean (*)(bfd *)’ {aka ‘int (*)(struct bfd *)’} to ‘bfd_boolean (*)(bfd *, bfd *)’ {aka ‘int (*)(st

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22823 --- Comment #4 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=68d206766637a041bbbeb89c8a1bfdd76317e192 commit 68d206766637a041bbbeb89c8a1

[Bug ld/22836] "-r -s" doesn't work with -g3 using GCC 7

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22836 --- Comment #2 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=6e5e9d58c1eeef5677c90886578a895cb8c164c5 commit 6e5e9d58c1eeef5677c90886578a8

[Bug ld/22836] "-r -s" doesn't work with -g3 using GCC 7

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22836 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ld/22832] 2.30 internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/elflink.c:9710 in elf_link_output_extsym

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22832 --- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to James Clarke from comment #4) > Note that gold also falls foul of this, giving "gold: internal error in > tls_get_addr_sym, at ../../gold/sparc.cc:391", though line 391 is > "gold_

[Bug binutils/22829] objcopy/strip removes PT_GNU_RELRO from lld binaries

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22829 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug binutils/22829] objcopy/strip: PT_GNU_RELRO is removed when it's not placed before read-only section

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22829 --- Comment #10 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=f2731e0c374e5323ce4cdae2bcc7b7fe22da1a6f commit f2731e0c374e5323ce4cdae2bcc7