https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23319
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23321
--- Comment #2 from Taewook Oh ---
It was clang, close to top of trunk. Maybe std_opcode_lengths has the wrong
value: As far as I remember, when it falls back to the default case, the array
value for DW_LNS_set_epilogue_end was 1, not 0.
It
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23258
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23321
--- Comment #1 from Cary Coutant ---
Can you provide a sample .o file? What compiler generated it? The "default"
case in that switch statement should handle unknown opcodes correctly, unless
the std_opcode_lengths array in the line table
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23268
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23268
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.31
--
You are receiving this mail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23310
--- Comment #4 from Paul Robinson
---
In addition to the extensions noted in comment 0, of course the .loc
directive would also need to accept file number 0 if there is one.
My impression had been that file #0 was implicitly the root file
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23310
--- Comment #3 from Paul Robinson
---
Created attachment 11091
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11091=edit
Sample .s and .o
Attaching a zip of a .s and .o file produced by Clang with -gmlt.
Note that file 0 and file
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23310
--- Comment #2 from Paul Robinson
---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #1)
> * There is a proposal to add a hash of the compilation unit source to the
> DW_TAG_compile_unit here: http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=171216.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23321
Bug ID: 23321
Summary: Gold Linker SIGSEGV During DWARF Decoding, because it
doesn't support DW_LNS_set_epilogue_begin/end and
DW_LNS_set_isa
Product: binutils
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23319
Bug ID: 23319
Summary: objdump - crash with following binary
Product: binutils
Version: 2.27
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23316
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23316
--- 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=6077de0645ce12a9c4e99f8839a846b42a535b0a
commit
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23317
Bug ID: 23317
Summary: Load address invalid for n64 MIPS -msym32 executables
Product: binutils
Version: unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23317
Bug 23317 depends on bug 22966, which changed state.
Bug 22966 Summary: n64 MIPS: -mplt -msym32 is resulting in assertion ld.orig:
BFD 2.29.1 assertion fail binutils-2.29.1 /bfd/elfxx-mips.c:11234
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22966
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||23317
Referenced Bugs:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22966
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23316
Bug ID: 23316
Summary: Segmentation fault in get_build_id()
Product: binutils
Version: 2.30
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21458
--- Comment #12 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=fc6141f097056f830a412afebed8d81a9d72b696
commit
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 6:34 AM Nick Clifton wrote:
>
> My suggestion for resolving this problem is as follows:
>
> * If the two versions of the file are the same, use the first version.
> * For files in the include/ directory, use the most recent version.
> * For files in the lib/ and
Hi Kaushal,
> I already have GDB 8.0.1 installed using that flow. But when I try to install
> GNU binutils using the same flow, it fails because these files are the exact
> same between the two installations:
If the files are exactly the same, then it should not matter which version you
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23299
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23299
--- 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=c6643fcc058d6b4aebca75818fbbb705837a9fa3
commit
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23268
--- Comment #6 from Mike Hommey ---
Thanks. Is this going to make the cut for 2.31?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23268
--- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Cary Coutant :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=ebb1332297da904a4adab0d3696a5512604f5edd
commit
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23309
--- Comment #3 from zenith432 at users dot sourceforge.net ---
Created attachment 11088
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11088=edit
Proposed patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
26 matches
Mail list logo
