[Bug gold/11061] New: Gold doesn't generate DT_RELCOUNT/DT_RELACOUNT
DT_RELCOUNT/DT_RELACOUNT are generated by ld and used by glibc. But gold doesn't generate them. -- Summary: Gold doesn't generate DT_RELCOUNT/DT_RELACOUNT Product: binutils Version: 2.21 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gold AssignedTo: ian at airs dot com ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11061 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gold/11062] New: -z nocombreloc doesn't work
Gold always combine dynamic relocations even when -z nocombreloc is used. -- Summary: -z nocombreloc doesn't work Product: binutils Version: 2.21 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gold AssignedTo: ian at airs dot com ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11062 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gold/11063] New: Wrong section used for TLSDESC relocations
For TLSDESC, GOT_TLS_GDESC relocations must be put in .relX.plt section. Gold puts them in .relX.dyn section. That is why tls_shared_gnu2_test test failed on Fedora 11/12. Implementation details can be found in BFD linker as well as in TLSDESC spec at: http://groups.google.com/group/ia32-abi -- Summary: Wrong section used for TLSDESC relocations Product: binutils Version: 2.21 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gold AssignedTo: ian at airs dot com ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11063 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/10924] Bug in objdump when disassembling raw armv4t binaries
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2009-12-08 17:25 --- Created an attachment (id=4450) -- (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4450action=view) Cathc PC used in post-indexed addressing -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10924 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/10924] Bug in objdump when disassembling raw armv4t binaries
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2009-12-08 17:30 --- Hi Chris, Good catch. I have uploaded a patch to catch this form of unpredictable addressing. You may have some difficulty applying it as I created it from my local sources which have a second, uncommited, patch applied to the same file. Cheers Nick P.S. By the way, I'm using ARM ARM version ARM DDI 0100I Mine is ARM DDI 0100E. I would not mind having a copy of 0100I PDF, but what I would really like is a copy of the latest ARM ISA specification. But that is only available to registered ARM customers. :-( -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10924 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/10924] Bug in objdump when disassembling raw armv4t binaries
--- Additional Comments From chris at seberino dot org 2009-12-08 18:25 --- Subject: Re: Bug in objdump when disassembling raw armv4t binaries On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 05:25:00PM -, nickc at redhat dot com wrote: --- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2009-12-08 17:25 --- Created an attachment (id=4450) -- (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4450action=view) -- (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4450action=view) Cathc PC used in post-indexed addressing Will the daily snapshot of binutils contain latest patches always? Like this one? Last time I didn't need to apply your patch so I'm wondering if I should just always use latest snapshot as is for new testing. cs -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10924 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/10924] Bug in objdump when disassembling raw armv4t binaries
--- Additional Comments From drow at sources dot redhat dot com 2009-12-08 19:49 --- Subject: Re: Bug in objdump when disassembling raw armv4t binaries On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 05:30:21PM -, nickc at redhat dot com wrote: Mine is ARM DDI 0100E. I would not mind having a copy of 0100I PDF, but what I would really like is a copy of the latest ARM ISA specification. But that is only available to registered ARM customers. :-( FYI, it's still registration-required, but you don't have to be a customer to get it; just register with their web portal. I've found I have to be a little careful with the current (DDI0406B) specification, as it sometimes is ARMv6/ARMv7-centric; to find out ways that ARMv5 is different you sometimes have to go back to DDI0100I. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10924 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/11065] New: [DllTool] DLL name from DEF file is ignored when using --output-exp option
When --output-exp is given, def_name() and def_library() functions ignore a DLL name given by NAME or LIBRARY commands in a DEF file. -- Summary: [DllTool] DLL name from DEF file is ignored when using - -output-exp option Product: binutils Version: 2.21 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org GCC target triplet: i686-pc-mingw32 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11065 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/11065] [DllTool] DLL name from DEF file is ignored when using --output-exp option
--- Additional Comments From d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2009-12-08 21:27 --- Created an attachment (id=4451) -- (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4451action=view) Proposed patch -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11065 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/11066] New: c++filt does not unmangle function types correctly
When c++filt unmangles a function type as an argument to a template, it incorrectly inserts a () between the return type and the argument list. For instance, functionvoid () comes out as functionvoid ()(). These parentheses are needed if there is an additional declarator on the function type (such as a pointer declarator, void (*)()), but cause parser errors if used otherwise. -- Summary: c++filt does not unmangle function types correctly Product: binutils Version: 2.20 Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P2 Component: binutils AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: rideau3 at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11066 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/11012] -Wl, -z, nocombreloc doesn't work with IRELATIVE relocations
-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at bigpond dot net |redhat dot com |dot au Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-12-08 22:40:47 date|| http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11012 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/11012] -Wl, -z, nocombreloc doesn't work with IRELATIVE relocations
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-09 01:26 --- Subject: Bug 11012 CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Branch: binutils-2_20-branch Changes by: amo...@sourceware.org 2009-12-09 01:26:21 Modified files: ld : ChangeLog ld/emulparams : elf64ppc.sh ld/scripttempl : elf.sc Log message: PR ld/11012 * emulparams/elf64ppc.sh (OTHER_GOT_RELOC_SECTIONS): Move .rela.opd .. (INITIAL_RELOC_SECTIONS): .. to here. New define. * scripttempl/elf.sc: Expand INITIAL_RELOC_SECTIONS. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srconly_with_tag=binutils-2_20-branchr1=1.2039.2.15r2=1.2039.2.16 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/emulparams/elf64ppc.sh.diff?cvsroot=srconly_with_tag=binutils-2_20-branchr1=1.21r2=1.21.6.1 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/scripttempl/elf.sc.diff?cvsroot=srconly_with_tag=binutils-2_20-branchr1=1.95.2.2r2=1.95.2.3 -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11012 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/11012] -Wl, -z, nocombreloc doesn't work with IRELATIVE relocations
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2009-12-09 01:29 --- This fixes the ifunc prelink test failures. Two prelink tests still fail FAIL: deps1.sh FAIL: deps2.sh I haven't yet investigated them. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11012 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
