[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |2.41 Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #34 from Rainer Orth --- Fixed for binutils 2.41. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #33 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=1bb82b89ae9d884016e55f2ade99c74fcc92a581 commit 1bb82b89ae9d884016e55f2ade99c74fcc92a581 Author: Rainer Orth Date: Thu Jan 19 13:48:58 2023 -0800 i386: Don't emit unsupported TLS relocs on Solaris Emit R_386_TLS_LE and R_386_TLS_IE, instead of R_386_TLS_LE_32 and R_386_TLS_IE_32, on Solaris. PR ld/13671 * elf32-i386.c (elf_i386_tls_transition): Only emit R_386_TLS_LE, R_386_TLS_IE on Solaris. (elf_i386_relocate_section): Only use R_386_TLS_GD->R_386_TLS_LE transition on Solaris. Co-Authored-By: H.J. Lu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://sourceware.org/pipe ||rmail/binutils/2023-January ||/125706.html --- Comment #32 from Rainer Orth --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #31) > (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #29) > > Created attachment 14590 [details] > > Augmented^2 patch > > LGTM. Please send it to the binutils mailing list. Thanks. Done now. Thanks a lot for the fix and your patience. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #29) > Created attachment 14590 [details] > Augmented^2 patch LGTM. Please send it to the binutils mailing list. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #30 from Rainer Orth --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #28) > (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #27) > > Created attachment 14577 [details] > > Augmented patch, incorporating review comments > > expected_tls_le should be unsigned int. The check will be > > if (r_type_tls == expected_tls_le) Ah, I misunderstood. Patch updated. > > /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect- > > ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.39.90.20230111 assertion fail > > /vol/src/gnu/binutils/hg/binutils-2.40-branch/local/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3377 > > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > > > On top of that, there are four new failures > > > > +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (dynamic) > > +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (dynamic, -z now) > > +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (PIE) > > +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (PIE, -z now) > > > > which show the same error. > > So TLS doesn't work for Solaris. I don't think so. On the contrary, I'd expect an assertion BFD_ASSERT (r_type == R_386_TLS_LE_32)' to trigger on Solaris with a patch whose primary purpose is to avoid the emission of R_386_TLS_LE_32. I've adjusted the assertion to BFD_ASSERT (r_type == expected_tls_le); and now (with ld-i386/tls.exp enabled on Solaris), all those tests PASS there and still do on Linux/i686. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #29 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 14590 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14590=edit Augmented^2 patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #28 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #27) > Created attachment 14577 [details] > Augmented patch, incorporating review comments expected_tls_le should be unsigned int. The check will be if (r_type_tls == expected_tls_le) > Like so? I wonder if it would be possible to move the declaration of > expected_tls_le to its use. Given that binutils now requires C99, that would > certainly be clearer, but differ in style from the rest of the file. > > Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and i686-pc-linux-gnu as well as a full > all-languages > gcc bootstrap. > > As an additional experiment, I've enabled ld-i386/tls.exp on Solaris/x86. > Before > this patch, only two tests FAIL: > > FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> IE transition without PLT > FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> IE transition without PLT (-z now) > > The error is the expected > > Running: tmpdir/tls-1d > tmpdir/tls-1d.out > ld.so.1: tls-1d: fatal: relocation error: R_386_UNKNOWN37: file > tmpdir/tls-1d: symbol gd: offset size (0 bytes) is not supported > > With the patch, those two tests continue to FAIL. However, the error is > different: > > /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect- > ld: warning: /usr/lib/crtn.o: missing .note.GNU-stack section implies > executable stack > /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect- > ld: NOTE: This behaviour is deprecated and will be removed in a future > version of the linker > /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect- > ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.39.90.20230111 assertion fail > /vol/src/gnu/binutils/hg/binutils-2.40-branch/local/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3377 > /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect- > ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.39.90.20230111 assertion fail > /vol/src/gnu/binutils/hg/binutils-2.40-branch/local/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3377 > /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect- > ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.39.90.20230111 assertion fail > /vol/src/gnu/binutils/hg/binutils-2.40-branch/local/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3377 > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > On top of that, there are four new failures > > +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (dynamic) > +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (dynamic, -z now) > +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (PIE) > +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (PIE, -z now) > > which show the same error. So TLS doesn't work for Solaris. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #14568|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #27 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 14577 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14577=edit Augmented patch, incorporating review comments Like so? I wonder if it would be possible to move the declaration of expected_tls_le to its use. Given that binutils now requires C99, that would certainly be clearer, but differ in style from the rest of the file. Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and i686-pc-linux-gnu as well as a full all-languages gcc bootstrap. As an additional experiment, I've enabled ld-i386/tls.exp on Solaris/x86. Before this patch, only two tests FAIL: FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> IE transition without PLT FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> IE transition without PLT (-z now) The error is the expected Running: tmpdir/tls-1d > tmpdir/tls-1d.out ld.so.1: tls-1d: fatal: relocation error: R_386_UNKNOWN37: file tmpdir/tls-1d: symbol gd: offset size (0 bytes) is not supported With the patch, those two tests continue to FAIL. However, the error is different: /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect-ld: warning: /usr/lib/crtn.o: missing .note.GNU-stack section implies executable stack /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect-ld: NOTE: This behaviour is deprecated and will be removed in a future version of the linker /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect-ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.39.90.20230111 assertion fail /vol/src/gnu/binutils/hg/binutils-2.40-branch/local/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3377 /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect-ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.39.90.20230111 assertion fail /vol/src/gnu/binutils/hg/binutils-2.40-branch/local/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3377 /var/gcc/binutils/i386/obj/binutils-2.40-branch-local/ld/tmpdir/ld/collect-ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.39.90.20230111 assertion fail /vol/src/gnu/binutils/hg/binutils-2.40-branch/local/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3377 collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status On top of that, there are four new failures +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (dynamic) +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (dynamic, -z now) +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (PIE) +FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> LE transition without PLT (PIE, -z now) which show the same error. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #25)
> Created attachment 14568 [details]
> Augmented patch
@@ -2853,9 +2866,18 @@ elf_i386_relocate_section (bfd *output_b
relend, h, r_symndx, true))
return false;
- if (r_type_tls == R_386_TLS_LE_32)
+ if (r_type_tls == R_386_TLS_LE_32
+ || (r_type_tls == R_386_TLS_LE
+ && htab->elf.target_os == is_solaris))
Please add and check "expected_tls_le".
{
- BFD_ASSERT (! unresolved_reloc);
+ /* NB: Solaris only supports R_386_TLS_GD->R_386_TLS_LE. */
+ BFD_ASSERT (! unresolved_reloc
+ && (htab->elf.target_os != is_solaris
+ || (htab->elf.target_os == is_solaris
+ && (r_type == R_386_TLS_GD
+ || r_type == R_386_TLS_IE
+ || r_type == R_386_TLS_GOTIE)
+ && r_type_tls == R_386_TLS_LE)));
No need to check R_386_TLS_LE here with "expected_tls_le".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #25 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 14568 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14568=edit Augmented patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #24 from Rainer Orth --- Sorry for dropping the ball on this one for so long. However, some time ago the issue broke the gcc trunk build with D included since d21 didn't run due to the unsupported reloc. I've now refreshed your patch and had to make two amendements: When linking GCC's gcc.dg/torture/tls/run-ie.c without and with -fPIC, the assertion would fire in two cases that seem legit: * r_type = R_386_TLS_IE, r_type_tls = R_386_TLS_LE * r_type = R_386_TLS_GOTIE, r_type_tls = R_386_TLS_LE If I let those two in, the gcc bootstrap finishes successfully and the testsuite run shows no regressions compared to a gas/ld build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu --- I updated users/hjl/solaris branch. But I have no idea if elf_i386_tpoff is correct for Solaris. -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #22 from Rainer Orth --- > --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu --- [...] > I didn't see R_386_TLS_TPOFF. What happened to > > 0030 0b12 R_386_TLS_GD 0004 > __gcov_indirect_call_callee > > in input file? This: _gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2.o has 1a: 8d 04 1d 00 00 00 00lea0x0(,%ebx,1),%eax 21: e8 fc ff ff ff call 22 <__gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2+0x22> with the R_386_TLS_GD reloc above; the executable has 805224a: 65 a1 00 00 00 00 mov%gs:0x0,%eax 8052250: 05 fc ff ff ff add$0xfffc,%eax 8052255: 90 nop without any relocs. Btw., please note that I'll be on an extended vacation starting tomorrow, with little or no net access for a month. -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #20) > The full executable is at > > > https://www.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de/~ro/files/crossmodule-indircall-1-ld. > tar.bz2 I didn't see R_386_TLS_TPOFF. What happened to 0030 0b12 R_386_TLS_GD 0004 __gcov_indirect_call_callee in input file? -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #20 from Rainer Orth --- > --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu --- [...] > What doe Solaris ld generate? Here are the initial sections of with either linker: * gas-gld: 08048ff0 <__gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2>: 8048ff0: 55 push %ebp 8048ff1: 89 e5 mov%esp,%ebp 8048ff3: 57 push %edi 8048ff4: 56 push %esi 8048ff5: 53 push %ebx 8048ff6: e8 8d ff ff ff call 8048f88 <__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx> 8048ffb: 81 c3 99 3f 00 00 add$0x3f99,%ebx 8049001: 83 ec 1csub$0x1c,%esp 8049004: 8b 7d 08mov0x8(%ebp),%edi 8049007: 8b 75 0cmov0xc(%ebp),%esi 804900a: 65 a1 00 00 00 00 mov%gs:0x0,%eax 8049010: 03 83 8c 00 00 00 add0x8c(%ebx),%eax 8049016: 8b 55 10mov0x10(%ebp),%edx 8049019: 39 10 cmp%edx,(%eax) * gas-ld: 08052230 <__gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2>: 8052230: 55 push %ebp 8052231: 89 e5 mov%esp,%ebp 8052233: 57 push %edi 8052234: 56 push %esi 8052235: 53 push %ebx 8052236: e8 6e fb ff ff call 8051da9 <__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx> 805223b: 81 c3 4d 2b 01 00 add$0x12b4d,%ebx 8052241: 83 ec 1csub$0x1c,%esp 8052244: 8b 7d 08mov0x8(%ebp),%edi 8052247: 8b 75 0cmov0xc(%ebp),%esi 805224a: 65 a1 00 00 00 00 mov%gs:0x0,%eax 8052250: 05 fc ff ff ff add$0xfffc,%eax 8052255: 90 nop 8052256: 8b 55 10mov0x10(%ebp),%edx 8052259: 39 10 cmp%edx,(%eax) The full executable is at https://www.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de/~ro/files/crossmodule-indircall-1-ld.tar.bz2 -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #18) > > --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu --- > > Please try users/hjl/solaris branch at > > > > https://github.com/hjl-tools/binutils-gdb > > Any reason not to keep that branch in the binutils-git repo on > sourceware? That's where I looked initially, confusing the hell out of > me ;-) It is easier to update a branch on github. > Fortunately, a lot of failures are gone, but still a couple remain, all > from g++.dg/tree-prof and gcc.dg/tree-prof tests, which SEGV, e.g. > > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1.c execution, > -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE > > Thread 2 received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > [Switching to Thread 1 (LWP 1)] > 0x080491c9 in __gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2 (value=151663852, > cur_func=0x8048f10 ) > at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libgcc/libgcov-profiler.c:335 > 335 if (cur_func == __gcov_indirect_call_callee > => 0x8049019 <__gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2+41>: cmp%edx,(%eax) > (gdb) p/x $eax > $1 = 0x66caa44 > > That address is indeed unmapped and below the text segment. > > (gdb) where > #0 0x080491c9 in __gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2 (value=151663852, > cur_func=0x8048f10 ) > at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libgcc/libgcov-profiler.c:335 > #1 0x08048f41 in add () > #2 0x08048e5c in main () > > elfdump -r complains about the executable: > > crossmodule-indircall-1.x01: bad relocation entry: R_386_TLS_TPOFF: > relocation requires symbol > crossmodule-indircall-1.x01: bad relocation entry: R_386_TLS_TPOFF: > relocation requires symbol What doe Solaris ld generate? > [3] R_386_TLS_TPOFF 0x804d22c 0x4 .got > [4] R_386_TLS_TPOFF 0x804d230 0 .got >[11] R_386_JMP_SLOT 0x804d1c8 0x80489f6 .got___tls_get_addr > > It happens even when I build without -flto: > > $ ld -m elf_i386_sol2 -o crossmodule-indircall-1.x01 /usr/lib/crt1.o > crossmodule-indircall-1.o crossmodule-indircall-1a.o -lm -lgcov -lgcc -lc > /usr/lib/crtn.o > > Input files at > > > https://www.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de/~ro/files/crossmodule-indircall-1.tar. > bz2 -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #18 from Rainer Orth --- > --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu --- > Please try users/hjl/solaris branch at > > https://github.com/hjl-tools/binutils-gdb Any reason not to keep that branch in the binutils-git repo on sourceware? That's where I looked initially, confusing the hell out of me ;-) Fortunately, a lot of failures are gone, but still a couple remain, all from g++.dg/tree-prof and gcc.dg/tree-prof tests, which SEGV, e.g. FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1.c execution, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE Thread 2 received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. [Switching to Thread 1 (LWP 1)] 0x080491c9 in __gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2 (value=151663852, cur_func=0x8048f10 ) at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libgcc/libgcov-profiler.c:335 335 if (cur_func == __gcov_indirect_call_callee => 0x8049019 <__gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2+41>: cmp%edx,(%eax) (gdb) p/x $eax $1 = 0x66caa44 That address is indeed unmapped and below the text segment. (gdb) where #0 0x080491c9 in __gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2 (value=151663852, cur_func=0x8048f10 ) at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libgcc/libgcov-profiler.c:335 #1 0x08048f41 in add () #2 0x08048e5c in main () elfdump -r complains about the executable: crossmodule-indircall-1.x01: bad relocation entry: R_386_TLS_TPOFF: relocation requires symbol crossmodule-indircall-1.x01: bad relocation entry: R_386_TLS_TPOFF: relocation requires symbol [3] R_386_TLS_TPOFF 0x804d22c 0x4 .got [4] R_386_TLS_TPOFF 0x804d230 0 .got [11] R_386_JMP_SLOT 0x804d1c8 0x80489f6 .got___tls_get_addr It happens even when I build without -flto: $ ld -m elf_i386_sol2 -o crossmodule-indircall-1.x01 /usr/lib/crt1.o crossmodule-indircall-1.o crossmodule-indircall-1a.o -lm -lgcov -lgcc -lc /usr/lib/crtn.o Input files at https://www.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de/~ro/files/crossmodule-indircall-1.tar.bz2 -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu --- Please try users/hjl/solaris branch at https://github.com/hjl-tools/binutils-gdb -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu --- [hjl@gnu-6 solaris-1]$ cat dummy.s .text .global _start _start: movlfoo@indntpoff, %eax .globl bar .type bar, @function bar: lealfoo@tlsgd(,%ebx,1), %eax call___tls_get_addr@PLT movl(%eax), %eax .globl foo .section.tbss,"awT",@nobits .align 4 .type foo, @object .size foo, 4 foo: .zero 4 [hjl@gnu-6 solaris-1]$ gcc -c -m32 dummy.s [hjl@gnu-6 solaris-1]$ ./ld -m elf_i386_sol2 dummy.o ./ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.30.51.20180212 internal error, aborting at /export/gnu/import/git/sources/binutils-gdb/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3169 in elf_i386_relocate_section ./ld: Please report this bug. [hjl@gnu-6 solaris-1]$ ld -m elf_i386 dummy.o [hjl@gnu-6 solaris-1]$ -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth --- > --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- [...] > Please provide all linker inputs so that I > can reproduce i it on Linux. Now available at https://www.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de/~ro/files/pr13671.tar.bz2 -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #12) > While it fixes the two failing ld testcases, during a gcc mainline > bootstrap I get man errors: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/pr47793.c (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /vol/gcc/bin/gld-2.30.51-tls: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.30.51.20180211 internal > error, aborting at > /vol/src/gnu/binutils/binutils/local/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3169 in > elf_i386_relocate_section > > The ld invocation boils down to > > ld -m elf_i386_sol2 -o ./pr47793.exe /usr/lib/crt1.o pr47793.o -lgcov -lgcc > -lc Please provide all linker inputs so that I can reproduce i it on Linux. -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 10807 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10807=edit assembler output -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #12 from Rainer Orth --- While it fixes the two failing ld testcases, during a gcc mainline bootstrap I get man errors: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr47793.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /vol/gcc/bin/gld-2.30.51-tls: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.30.51.20180211 internal error, aborting at /vol/src/gnu/binutils/binutils/local/bfd/elf32-i386.c:3169 in elf_i386_relocate_section The ld invocation boils down to ld -m elf_i386_sol2 -o ./pr47793.exe /usr/lib/crt1.o pr47793.o -lgcov -lgcc -lc -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 10801 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10801=edit A patch Please try this. -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth --- As a first step, I've enabled ld-i386/tls.exp and ld-x86_64/tls.exp on Solaris/x86 and ran the respective tests. The x86_64 tests all PASS, while for i386 I see the known failure case: FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> IE transition without PLT Running: tmpdir/tls-1d > tmpdir/tls-1d.out ld.so.1: tls-1d: fatal: relocation error: R_386_UNKNOWN37: file tmpdir/tls-1d: symbol gd: offset size (0 bytes) is not supported FAIL: TLS GD/LD -> IE transition without PLT (-z now) same 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- There are many Linux TLS tests under ld/testsuite/ld-i386. But they run only for Linux targets. Please figure out: 1. Which TLS code sequences are also generated by Solaris GCC. 2. Among them, which TLS transitions for Linux should be disabled for Solaris. -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Does it look like a testcase?
[hjl@gnu-bdx-1 solaris-1]$ cat x.c
extern __thread int __gmpfr_flags;
int
_start (void)
{
return __gmpfr_flags;
}
[hjl@gnu-bdx-1 solaris-1]$ cat y.c
__thread int __gmpfr_flags;
[hjl@gnu-bdx-1 solaris-1]$ make
gcc -m32 -fPIC -c -o x.o x.c
gcc -m32 -fPIC -c -o y.o y.c
./ld -m elf_i386_sol2 -shared -o y.so y.o
./ld -m elf_i386_sol2 -o x x.o y.so
readelf -r x
Relocation section '.rel.dyn' at offset 0x224 contains 1 entry:
Offset InfoTypeSym.Value Sym. Name
08049338 0225 R_386_TLS_TPOFF32 __gmpfr_flags
[hjl@gnu-bdx-1 solaris-1]$
--
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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth --- > --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- [...] > Please provide one separate testcase in assembly code for each instance > where ld creates dynamic relocs Solaris ld.so.1 cannot handle. I'm trying, but I have a hard time even for the case at hand: There's not only one, but a couple of those relocs in cc1: Relocation Section: .rel.dyn index typeoffset value section symbol [...] [189] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c79cf4 0 .got __gmpfr_emin [390] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c7a01c 0 .got __gmpfr_default_rounding_mode [430] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c7a0bc 0 .got __gmpfr_cache_const_log2 [432] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c7a0c4 0 .got __gmpfr_flags [546] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c7a28c 0 .got __gmpfr_cache_const_catalan [1069] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c7aab8 0 .got __gmpfr_cache_const_euler [1225] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c7ad28 0 .got __gmpfr_emax [1330] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c7aecc 0 .got __gmpfr_default_fp_bit_precision [1467] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c7b0f0 0 .got __gmpfr_cache_const_pi The definitions are from libmpfr.a (built with --disable-shared --with-pic), e.g. [22] 0 0x4 TLS GLOB D0 .tbss __gmpfr_flags In the gld-linked cc1, I find Symbol Table Section: .dynsym [5850] 0x6c 0x4 TLS GLOB D1 .tbss __gmpfr_flags Global Offset Table Section: .got [584] 0x9c7a0c4 0 R_386_UNKNOWN37 __gmpfr_flags Relocation Section: .rel.dyn [432] R_386_UNKNOWN37 0x9c7a0c4 0 .got __gmpfr_flags while in the ld-linked cc1, there is only: Symbol Table Section: .dynsym [14735] 0x6c 0x4 TLS GLOB D1 .tbss__gmpfr_flags The toolchains are otherwise identical, both using gas 2.30 with either Solaris ld or gld 2.30, both trees configured with --enable-host-shared, no (relevant) differences in auto-host.h. In the ld-linked cc1, there are no got entries for __gmpfr_* symbols at all. So far, I've not managed to create a testcase from this. -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #5) > I don't think it needs to: gcc is careful only to emit those tls relocs > that the whole toolchain (assembler + linker) can handle. See > TARGET_SUN_TLS, HAVE_AS_IX86_TLSLDMPLT, and HAVE_AS_IX86_TLSGDPLT. So > far gcc bootstraps with gas and gld work just fine: this is one of the > first cases where gld emits relocs Solaris ld.so.1 cannot handle. Please provide one separate testcase in assembly code for each instance where ld creates dynamic relocs Solaris ld.so.1 cannot handle. -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth --- I don't think it needs to: gcc is careful only to emit those tls relocs that the whole toolchain (assembler + linker) can handle. See TARGET_SUN_TLS, HAVE_AS_IX86_TLSLDMPLT, and HAVE_AS_IX86_TLSGDPLT. So far gcc bootstraps with gas and gld work just fine: this is one of the first cases where gld emits relocs Solaris ld.so.1 cannot handle. -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- I don't think ld supports Solaris/x86 TLS. -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 --- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth --- > --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- > These TLS transitions should be disabled for Solaris. > Does Solaris support Linux TLS relocations without > TLS transitions? The full docs on what Solaris does support wrt. relocs is here: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37838_01/html/E36783/chapter6-54839.html#scrolltoc And there's also a section on TLS: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37838_01/html/E36783/man-tlsam.html#scrolltoc -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- These TLS transitions should be disabled for Solaris. Does Solaris support Linux TLS relocations without TLS transitions? -- 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 ld/13671] gld creates i386 relocations not supported by Solaris ld.so.1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com Version|2.22|2.30 --- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth --- I just had the same problem again (this time with gas/gld 2.30) on Solaris 11.4/x86: I tried to build gcc mainline with --enable-host-shared --enable-languages=jit, but running cc1 fails: /var/gcc/regression/trunk/11.4-gcc-gas-gld/build/./gcc/xgcc -B/var/gcc/regression/trunk/11.4-gcc-gas-gld/build/./gcc/ -xc -nostdinc /dev/null -S -o /dev/null -fself-test=/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/solaris/gcc/testsuite/selftests ld.so.1: cc1: fatal: relocation error: R_386_UNKNOWN37: file /var/gcc/regression/trunk/11.4-gcc-gas-gld/build/gcc/cc1: symbol __gmpfr_emin: offset size (0 bytes) is not supported xgcc: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1 compilation terminated. make[3]: *** [Makefile:1972: s-selftest-c] Error 1 R_386_UNKNOWN37 above is R_386_TLS_TPOFF32, and the current (Solaris 11.4) has #define R_386_UNKNOWN24 24 #define R_386_UNKNOWN25 25 #define R_386_UNKNOWN26 26 #define R_386_UNKNOWN27 27 #define R_386_UNKNOWN28 28 #define R_386_UNKNOWN29 29 #define R_386_UNKNOWN30 30 #define R_386_UNKNOWN31 31 #define R_386_UNKNOWN37 37 /* reserved for future expansion */ #define R_386_SIZE3238 /* reserved for future expansion */ #define R_386_TLS_GOTDESC 39 /* reserved for future expansion */ #define R_386_TLS_DESC_CALL 40 /* reserved for future expansion */ #define R_386_TLS_DESC 41 /* reserved for future expansion */ #define R_386_IRELATIVE 42 /* GNU/Linux specific (STT_GNU_IFUNC) */ Rainer -- 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
