On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:31:33AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:45:55PM -0500, Glen W. Mabey wrote: > > I am using binutils version 2.16.1cvs20060413-1 from debian sarge, and > > Hmm, I wonder what debian have done to binutils? You probably should > report this problem to them if it persists.
Well, I did email the maintainer (I didn't file a bug report) hoping he might volunteer some input, but I haven't received any reply. > > ar cr ../lapack_LINUX.a zbdsqr.o zgbbrd.o zgbcon.o zgbequ.o zgbrfs.o > > > > < snip the listing of a whole bunch more .o files > > > > > BFD: BFD 2.16.91 20060413 Debian GNU/Linux internal error, aborting at > > ../../bfd/elfcode.h line 190 in bfd_elf32_swap_symbol_in > > This error means that a symbol has an st_shndx field equal to 0xffff, > but no SHT_SYMTAB_SHNDX section was found. > > ELF symbols normally only use 16-bit section indices. 0xffff should > only occur if the object has more than 64k sections. I think that is > unlikely for lapack, so the error is probably due to some sort of file > corruption. Humm. The problem was consistent -- I did re-extract and re-compile the sources multiple times. And there were issues when both g77-3.4 and g77-2.95 were used for compilation. Then, when I used those same compiler versions under a different release of debian, (and consequently a different version of binutils) there were no errors at all. So, I now have a workaround, but it really would be nice if it would all work under debian etch. Thank you, Glen Mabey _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
