> GNU objcopy (GNU Binutils) 2.21.1
> developer/[email protected]
> This is a Solaris 11u1 package.


Hi David, thanks for the info.
But what about  Solaris 10 ?

https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+Build+Platforms

mentions 10u6  supported for JDK8 .

And  does  the  11u1 package   developer/[email protected] 
  Contain special objcopy patches ?

Best regards, Matthias


-----Original Message-----
From: David Holmes [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Freitag, 28. April 2017 13:24
To: Baesken, Matthias <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' 
<[email protected]>; Erik Joelsson ([email protected]) 
<[email protected]>; '[email protected]' 
<[email protected]>
Cc: Simonis, Volker <[email protected]>; Reingruber, Richard 
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: objcopy issues on Solaris

Hi Matthias,

On 28/04/2017 7:21 PM, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
>
> Hello, we are facing problems with gobjcopy on Solaris 10 x86_64.
> When processing libjvm.so (product build) with FDS and separated debug-infos 
> we are getting :
>
> objcopy: libjvm.debuginfo: Not enough room for program headers, try linking 
> with -N
>
> It looks like we are running into this (or a similar) problems :
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7165598
>
> As recommended in those bugs :
>
>   x86
>   https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8034005
>
>   (and similar Sparc issue)
>   https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033602
>
> We are using objcopy from binutils-2.28 (downloaded and built ourselves from 
> standard binutils gnu.org page)
> and still get the mentioned error.
>
> In the OpenJDK version checks, 2.21 seems to be needed minimum,
> the comments in version check says "objcopy prior to 2.21.1 on solaris is 
> broken and is not usable.".
>
> Could you tell us the exact version of  objcopy / gobjcopy  you are using in 
> 8 and 9 on Solaris  to
> process the debuginfo ?
> And where do you get the gobjcopy from?

GNU objcopy (GNU Binutils) 2.21.1

developer/[email protected]

This is a Solaris 11u1 package.

David
-----

> Thanks, Richard and Matthias
>

Reply via email to