--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2008-08-15
08:38 ---
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2008-08/msg00089.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2008-08-15
10:22 ---
This comment in front of generic_link_read_symbols explains why we are running
into trouble:
/* Grab the symbols for an object file when doing a generic link. We
store the symbols in the outsymbols
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2008-08-15
10:41 ---
This simple patch seems to cure the problem.
Index: bfd/elf.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v
retrieving revision 1.462
diff -u -p
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-08-15 10:47
---
Created an attachment (id=2910)
-- (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2910action=view)
Improve interworking bfd selection
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6727
--- You
Hi John,
We are upgrading our cross-compiler from GCC 2.95.2, binutils 2.10.1 to GCC
4.2.0, binutils 2.17.
Is there any particular reason that you are not using the 2.18 binutils
release or the mainline development sources ?
Cheers
Nick
___
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-08-15 11:02
---
Subject: Re: New: Segmentation Fault using cross architecture
ld command
Hi John,
We are upgrading our cross-compiler from GCC 2.95.2, binutils 2.10.1 to GCC
4.2.0, binutils 2.17.
Is there any
--- Additional Comments From vincent dot riviere at freesbee dot fr
2008-08-15 12:37 ---
I confirm the previous patch applied to binutils 2.18 fixes the testcase, as
well as my original real-world problem. Furthermore, the linker warnings
present in a.out object files are displayed as
--- Additional Comments From jmorrison at printronix dot com 2008-08-15
16:15 ---
Reply to #6 from Alan:
Without the --gc-section option I get this error message:
no memory region specified for loadable section `.eh_frame'
You can see our linker script in one of the console
--- Additional Comments From jmorrison at printronix dot com 2008-08-15
16:17 ---
Reply to #7 from Nick.
That was a finger-check on my part. We started this journey with 2.17, but
once we ran across the seg-fault, we went to 2.18 and I've been continuously
checking with the latest
