Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-03-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 03/05/2013 12:42 AM, marco atzeri wrote: On 3/4/2013 11:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Incidentally, there is no need to change the test schedules, and such a patch would not be accepted. There is an option to restrict the number of concurrent connections the regression tests will run (d

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-03-04 Thread marco atzeri
On 3/4/2013 11:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Incidentally, there is no need to change the test schedules, and such a patch would not be accepted. There is an option to restrict the number of concurrent connections the regression tests will run (designed specifically with Cygwin in mind, in f

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-03-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 03/04/2013 04:30 PM, marco atzeri wrote: On 3/4/2013 9:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I have not heard a word on this in the 5 weeks or so since it was sent. Are you guys interested in fixing this or not? yes Andrew, I am working on it, unfortunately this Makefile spaghetti is not nice to h

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-03-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 03/04/2013 04:30 PM, marco atzeri wrote: On 3/4/2013 9:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I have not heard a word on this in the 5 weeks or so since it was sent. Are you guys interested in fixing this or not? yes Andrew, I am working on it, unfortunately this Makefile spaghetti is not nice to h

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-03-04 Thread marco atzeri
On 3/4/2013 9:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I have not heard a word on this in the 5 weeks or so since it was sent. Are you guys interested in fixing this or not? yes Andrew, I am working on it, unfortunately this Makefile spaghetti is not nice to handle probably 90% is working now, but I just

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-03-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/30/2013 11:46 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/29/2013 05:30 PM, Reini Urban wrote: On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:52 AM, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/26/2013 7:32 AM, Reini Urban wrote: rebase is not to blame. I agree ;-) Someone else is incorrectly managing the reloc table, and also objcopy s

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-30 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/30/2013 5:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Autoconf+Automake will be a much cleaner approach, and will allow to avoid at all the platform checks. Yes, I had the same impression but it is unfortunately not realistic. I worked against dllwrap removal but got stuck somewhere. When I find my old

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-30 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/29/2013 05:30 PM, Reini Urban wrote: On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:52 AM, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/26/2013 7:32 AM, Reini Urban wrote: rebase is not to blame. I agree ;-) Someone else is incorrectly managing the reloc table, and also objcopy seems innocent ... Postgresql dll's are built in

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-29 Thread Reini Urban
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:52 AM, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/26/2013 7:32 AM, Reini Urban wrote: >>> rebase is not to blame. I agree ;-) >>> Someone else is incorrectly managing the reloc table, >>> and also objcopy seems innocent ... >>> >>> Postgresql dll's are built in this way: >> >> >> My stro

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-25 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/26/2013 7:32 AM, Reini Urban wrote: rebase is not to blame. I agree ;-) Someone else is incorrectly managing the reloc table, and also objcopy seems innocent ... Postgresql dll's are built in this way: My strong guess is dllwrap. No other packages uses the ancient dllwrap anymore. I tri

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-25 Thread Reini Urban
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:11 AM, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/25/2013 4:00 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> On Jan 25 14:19, Kai Tietz wrote: >>> >>> 2013/1/25 marco atzeri : On 1/24/2013 11:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > I already explained why: The SEGV happens during relocat

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-25 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/25/2013 4:00 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 25 14:19, Kai Tietz wrote: 2013/1/25 marco atzeri : On 1/24/2013 11:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: I already explained why: The SEGV happens during relocation. The file header has been changed already. If you call the same rebase, it will

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-25 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 25 14:19, Kai Tietz wrote: > 2013/1/25 marco atzeri : > > On 1/24/2013 11:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > >> I already explained why: The SEGV happens during relocation. > >> The file header has been changed already. If you call the > >> same rebase, it will try to rebase the file to

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-25 Thread Kai Tietz
Well, here are my 2-cents about that issue. In general it is a flaw to have an base-relocation in debug-section, as this means such debug information can't be moved into a separate debug-file anymore. A debug-file has no relocation-information. Nevertheless it would be good, if objcopy gets adjus

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-25 Thread Kai Tietz
2013/1/25 marco atzeri : > On 1/24/2013 11:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> I already explained why: The SEGV happens during relocation. >> The file header has been changed already. If you call the >> same rebase, it will try to rebase the file to the same new >> address. If current file base

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-25 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/24/2013 11:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: I already explained why: The SEGV happens during relocation. The file header has been changed already. If you call the same rebase, it will try to rebase the file to the same new address. If current file base address == requested file base addres

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/24/2013 4:56 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:49:35AM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: The attached patch solves the issue of the short ".gnu_deb" on binutils cvs --- src/binutils/objcopy.c 2013-01-07 18:40:59.0 +0100 +++ src_new/binutils/objcopy.c 2013-01-1

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:49:35AM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >The attached patch solves the issue of the short ".gnu_deb" >on binutils cvs > >--- src/binutils/objcopy.c 2013-01-07 18:40:59.0 +0100 >+++ src_new/binutils/objcopy.c 2013-01-19 22:50:12.447000600 +0100 >@@ -3453,6 +3453,7

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 24 13:34, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/24/2013 1:08 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >>I was not clear. > >>Also rebasing with a different address make no difference > > > >It does for me: > > > > $ rebase -b 0x4000 dict_snowball.dll > > Segmentation fault > > $ rebase -b 0x5000

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/24/2013 1:08 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: I was not clear. Also rebasing with a different address make no difference It does for me: $ rebase -b 0x4000 dict_snowball.dll Segmentation fault $ rebase -b 0x5000 dict_snowball.dll Segmentation fault $ rebase -b 0x400

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 24 11:16, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/24/2013 11:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jan 24 10:49, marco atzeri wrote: > >>Please note that rebase segfaults on dict_snowball.dll the first time > >>but any subsequent rebasing, also with different start address, > >>works without any problem,

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/24/2013 11:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 24 10:49, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/24/2013 10:27 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 24 03:01, Yaakov wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:38:43 +0100, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 16 08:15, marco atzer

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 24 10:49, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/24/2013 10:27 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jan 24 03:01, Yaakov wrote: > >>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:38:43 +0100, marco atzeri wrote: > >>>On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 16 08:15, marco atzeri wrote: > >On 1/15/2013 11:03

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/24/2013 10:27 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 24 03:01, Yaakov wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:38:43 +0100, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 16 08:15, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/15/2013 11:03 PM, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/15/2013 12:24 PM, Corinna V

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 24 03:01, Yaakov wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:38:43 +0100, marco atzeri wrote: > > On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > On Jan 16 08:15, marco atzeri wrote: > > >> On 1/15/2013 11:03 PM, marco atzeri wrote: > > >>> On 1/15/2013 12:24 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > This i

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-24 Thread Cygwin/X
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:38:43 +0100, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jan 16 08:15, marco atzeri wrote: > >> On 1/15/2013 11:03 PM, marco atzeri wrote: > >>> On 1/15/2013 12:24 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > This is a serious bug in objcopy in the current b

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-19 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 19 09:56, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >This is a serious bug in objcopy in the current binutils. Given that > >cygport creates the debug info automatically, we might end up with > >spuriously broken DLLs in the distro. > > > >I checked with objco

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-19 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: This is a serious bug in objcopy in the current binutils. Given that cygport creates the debug info automatically, we might end up with spuriously broken DLLs in the distro. I checked with objcopy from the older binutils 2.51.53-2, and the problem

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-18 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 04:34:25PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> As far as I can tell it's an objcopy bug. >> >> The stripped version of the DLL has a normal relocation information >> which at one point ends in a NULL IMAGE_BASE_RELOCATION record, a

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-18 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: As far as I can tell it's an objcopy bug. The stripped version of the DLL has a normal relocation information which at one point ends in a NULL IMAGE_BASE_RELOCATION record, as expected. After calling `objcopy --add-gnu-debuglink', the relocation i

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-16 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 16 16:12, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/16/2013 3:42 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > >I forgot to mention, the --long-section-names enable option was > >never default, apparently. This would have to be fixed in cygport, > >I guess. > > The default seems to keep previous value, but > as "

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-16 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/16/2013 3:42 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: I forgot to mention, the --long-section-names enable option was never default, apparently. This would have to be fixed in cygport, I guess. The default seems to keep previous value, but as ".gnu_debuglink" is a long name at list in that case shou

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-16 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 16 14:38, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jan 16 08:15, marco atzeri wrote: > >>On 1/15/2013 11:03 PM, marco atzeri wrote: > >>>On 1/15/2013 12:24 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 15 11:36, marco atzeri wrote: > >On 1/15/2013 11:07 AM, Co

Re: Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-16 Thread marco atzeri
On 1/16/2013 1:35 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 16 08:15, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/15/2013 11:03 PM, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/15/2013 12:24 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 15 11:36, marco atzeri wrote: On 1/15/2013 11:07 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: This is a serious bug in objcopy

Binutils objcopy bug (was Re: rebase segfault)

2013-01-16 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 16 08:15, marco atzeri wrote: > On 1/15/2013 11:03 PM, marco atzeri wrote: > >On 1/15/2013 12:24 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>On Jan 15 11:36, marco atzeri wrote: > >>>On 1/15/2013 11:07 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > The segfault occurs as soon as one > entry translates into a m