On Don, 2011-04-28 at 10:45 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:06:01AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > >Take the build log, remove all lines without -fPIC, you'll only get > > > > >lines for building binaries and objects that aren't linked into > > > > >libxul.so. QED.
No possibility of e.g. a static library being linked into a shared object? > > > > shows nothing at all, and in particular no reason for the reassignment. > > > > > > Another data point that I gave before: 3.5.17-1 built just fine, but > > > 3.5.18-1 didn't. And attached here is the diff between both versions, > > > since you don't trust the maintainer telling you that the switch in the > > > toolchain is the likely culprit. > > > > > > But, yeah, it's just easier to dismiss toolchain bugs. The R_PPC_REL24 relocations may happen to work sometimes (possibly most of the time). > > I'll also add that the symbol for which the relocation is failing, > > _restgpr_29_x, comes from gcc, in gcc/config/rs6000/crtresxgpr.asm. > > But you're right, it's most probably not a toolchain problem. > > Even better, if I download xulrunner-1.9.1_1.9.1.18-1_powerpc.deb and > take a look at the relocations in libxul.so, I can't even find the > relocation ld.so is complaining about. How did you look? daenzer@thor|11:11:06> objdump -R /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so|grep R_PPC_REL24 0033faa0 R_PPC_REL24 _restgpr_29_x 0033fdc0 R_PPC_REL24 _restgpr_29_x 0033fea0 R_PPC_REL24 _restgpr_29_x [...] 47132 hits. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
