https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22829
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> --- Created attachment 10808 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10808&action=edit prospective patch The importance fields are for use by binutils maintainers. They are not for users to flag how important the bug is to them. You selected "critical" which is quite obviously wrong from the point of view of the binutils project, and perhaps I overreacted by marking your bug all the way down to "enhancement". What you don't know is that I'd already investigated the problem to the point of writing a fix, which would have worked but runs foul of what looks to be a lld bug. Why is lld putting p_memsz of the relro header larger than p_filsz? So I looked and found https://reviews.llvm.org/D28267. Apparently lld doesn't try to align the end of the relro segment. That has the unfortunate effect of wasting space where it matters for targets with limited addressing, whereas wasting space at the begining of the relro segment doesn't matter for such targets (you have to waste space somewhere), reinforcing my opinion that lld is a toy linker. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils