[Bug gold/18147] gold should not issue relocation overflow error with --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147 Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Assignee|ccoutant at google dot com |amodra at gmail dot com --- Comment #7 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com --- Fixed with commit 282c9750 -- 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
[Bug gold/18147] gold should not issue relocation overflow error with --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147 --- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com --- Actually, I am fine with only ignoring relocation errors against strong undefined symbol in precisely those cases where we already ignore the relocation errors against weak undefined symbols. Those are the only cases that will matter in practice. For example, Target_powerpcsize, big_endian::Relocate::relocate skips the relocation overflow error for a branch relocation to a weak undefined symbol. -- 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
[Bug gold/18147] gold should not issue relocation overflow error with --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147 --- Comment #5 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com --- It might be reasonable to not report relocation overflow for strong undefined symbols, but I don't think that a linker should ignore all weak undefined symbol overflow. For example, this if (foo) foo (); should report overflows in any relocation used to implement if (foo). Normally of course any relocations involved are absolute and zero works fine in an absolute relocation, but suppose a pc-relative address calculation is used to implement if (foo). That might overflow when foo is undefined if you use -Ttext (or have an extremely large binary). -- 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
[Bug gold/18147] gold should not issue relocation overflow error with --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com --- Here is my thinking, FWIW. What is the value of an undefined symbol? Why should a branch to zero not report an overflow, if there is indeed an overflow? Try linking the same testcase on x86_64, but with -Ttext=0x1. ld/ld-new -o pr18147 pr18147.o --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all -Ttext=0x1 ld/ld-new: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 0001 pr18147.o: In function `f1': pr18147.c:(.text+0x3): relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `f2' gold on x86_64 doesn't report an error, but that is simply because gold on x86_64 doesn't report relocation overflows, a serious defect IMO. gold/ld-new -o pr18147 pr18147.o --defsym f2=0 -Ttext=0x1 = no error -- 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
[Bug gold/18147] gold should not issue relocation overflow error with --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147 --- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com --- We already explicitly do not report relocation errors for weak undefined symbols. That's because in those cases the relocation overflow is not important. And Cary is right: for any sort of undefined symbol, the relocation overflow is not important. What useful information is the linker conveying? I've already said that I don't care whether the symbol is undefined. It follows that any reference to that symbol can be expected to fail, and I don't care. If I'm going to run the program, I must be using some technique to avoid executing that relocation at all. There's no reason to think that I care about a relocation overflow referring to that symbol any more than I care about any other reference to that symbol. This is not the case of --defsym SYM=0. For that case we certainly should report a relocation overflow. This is a case where I've said I don't care about the symbol at all. (The particular use case here is a program that is determining the types of symbols by linking against libraries that define those symbols and examining the debug info. The libraries can be passed as -l options and there is no need for the tool to replicate the linker's search path. There is also no need to worry about the library dependencies, since they aren't relevant for the purpose of the tool. So it uses --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all.) -- 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
[Bug gold/18147] gold should not issue relocation overflow error with --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147 --- Comment #1 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at google dot com --- That last error shouldn't be issued. We shouldn't report a relocation overflow for a reference to an undefined symbol if we aren't going to report an error about the undefined symbol. Why should we report a relocation overflow in either case? -cary -- 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
[Bug gold/18147] gold should not issue relocation overflow error with --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147 --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com --- That last error shouldn't be issued. We shouldn't report a relocation overflow for a reference to an undefined symbol if we aren't going to report an error about the undefined symbol. Why should we report a relocation overflow in either case? You're right, we shouldn't. We should only issue relocation overflow errors for defined symbols. A relocation overflow for an undefined symbol is useless. -- 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
[Bug gold/18147] gold should not issue relocation overflow error with --unresolved-symbols=ignore-all
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147 Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amodra at gmail dot com -- 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
