https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28924
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28867
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the files. I was able to confirm that the fail.o file really is
broken. However I am unable to reproduce its generation. That is, I cannot
assemble the fail.s file and get a
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28791
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 14024
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14024=edit
Proposed Patch
(In reply to Pete Moore from comment #5)
> Since the commit above is the one that introduced the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28867
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Last
dot c
||om
Component|gprof |gprofng
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
||nickc at redhat dot com
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |vladimir.mezentsev at
oracle dot c
||om
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
||nickc at redhat dot com
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |vladimir.mezentsev at
oracle dot c
||om
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28902
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #3)
Hi Fangrui,
> The order issue can be fixed by postponing the effects of INSERT after
> regular SECTIONS. Is it feasible?
Hmmm, maybe, but I would be very
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28924
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28917
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25713
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25713
--- Comment #45 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Fred,
Try here:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28902
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-28
Ever confirmed|0
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25713
--- Comment #43 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #42)
> ../../binutils-gdb/bfd/bfdio.c:129:60: error: 'partPathOrig' undeclared
*sigh* I admit that I had no way to test the patch, so I just hoped that it was
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25713
--- Comment #41 from Nick Clifton ---
Thanks Fred, Thanks Torbjörn,
I have now applied the patch. Do you think that it is OK to close this PR
now ?
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28886
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25713
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28886
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28719
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Achim from comment #6)
> So it turns out that removing the section at that commit (as I had done
> during bisecting) would actually restore the previous behaviour (the
> executable would not
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28848
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> I need to think about this a bit. The object file is arguably buggy in that
> it says that it uses hw fp, but doesn't say which version. But if we report
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28848
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 13968
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13968=edit
Proposed Patch
Hi Richard,
How about this patch ?
I was unsure what should be done with the other
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28848
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||plugwash at p10link dot net
---
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Peter,
I believe that this is the same issue as had been reported in PR 28848.
The good news is that a proposed patch has submitted. If you would
|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi panxiaohe,
> Hello, the results of "as" command are not consistent in arm and x86.
> This is because md_shortopts and md_parse_option
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28834
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28848
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28834
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28844
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #9)
> I can't reproduce with master nor the binutils-2.38 branch, excellent!
In which case are you happy if we close this PR ?
--
You are receiving this mail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28814
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28844
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28832
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28816
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Klaus Ziegler from comment #4)
> much appreciated, however there are still errors
> building current binutilities on illumos in:
> sim/erc32/erc32.c
Ah - the sim sources are part of gdb, not
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Klaus,
Thanks for reporting this problem. I have gone ahead and applied your patch.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28779
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28719
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28779
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28762
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28762
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Sergey Belyashov from comment #5)
> Attached patch which fixes the bug.
Patch approved - please apply.
(Thanks for the quick fix! :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28718
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Pavel Mayorov from comment #3)
> I submitted the patch for review the same day
> (https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-December/118976.html)... but
> still haven't received any
||nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Pavel,
Thanks for reporting this problem.
I know that you are working on a fix, but I wanted to make sure that the
issue was resolved before the 2.38
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28716
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28697
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Travis Downs from comment #3)
Hi Travis,
> Do I understand correctly that things checked into master now will be
> released in binutils 2.38?
Yes. Ideally the 2.38 release will happen in
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28686
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Joerg,
The root
||nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Travis,
The reason for the discrepancy is that objdump's -S option uses the BFD
library to load DWARF debug information, and this library does include
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28691
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
|--- |FIXED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Nikita,
Thanks for reporting this problem - and providing a fix!
I have now checked in your patch.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28690
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28603
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26206
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28622
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28645
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28645
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
|--- |FIXED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
I agree - since internal_auxent is an internal structure it should be safe to
change the fields to use the bfd_hostptr_t type. I have checked in a patch to
do
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28632
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28632
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28054
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #5)
> I was using toolchains configured as ft32-elf and as nsp430-elf
Err, of course I meant "msp430-elf" not "nsp430-elf"
--
You are receiving this mail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28054
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Tucker from comment #4)
> What regressions were you running on the FT32 & MSP430 targets?
I was using toolchains configured as ft32-elf and as nsp430-elf
> I tried
> adding back the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28614
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Tamar,
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28614
>
> Perhaps we should turn off asserts in opcodes? to prevent similar usages in
> the
> future?
Well not just opcodes, but also the bfd
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
I am not a fan of using abort() inside a library. In my opinion library calls
should never fail. If they cannot complete they should return some kind of
error
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28262
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27442
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
I have committed a small patch to fix this problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28593
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28593
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |OBSOLETE
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
I believe that this bug has been fixed by some other update. Testing with the
latest sources I get:
% objdump -S poc_segv
objdump: warning: poc_segv has
|RESOLVED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
I have applied a small patch so that the PT_GNU_RELRO and PT_GNU_PROPERTY names
will be recognised in linker scripts. Plus the linker will now generate a
warning
|RESOLVED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Markus,
Thanks for the bug report and patch. I have applied your patch,
along with an update to the arm testsuite to make sure that these
instructions
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28399
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28342
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
|--- |FIXED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Shaohua Li,
Thanks for reporting this bug. I have checked in a small patch to fix the
problem.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28303
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28266
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Joel Rosdahl from comment #3)
Hi Joel,
> Here is how to reproduce the issue:
>
> % cd /tmp
> % echo 'int x;' >test.c
> % /usr/bin/gcc -g -fdebug-prefix-map=/tmp=/example -c
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28262
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Dietmar May from comment #2)
> This assembled, linked, ran
Ran in what environment ?
I agree that the processor itself will happily attempt to execute anything that
it is pointed at,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28304
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2021-09-06
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
investigating
--
You
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28303
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 13655
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13655=edit
Proposed patch
Possible patch to fix the problem
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28303
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Tetsuma-san,
I have gone ahead and applied a small patch to fix the problem.
It has been a while since I last worked on the V850 target, so it
possible
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28266
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28262
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27779
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to liuchenyifan from comment #3)
Hi Liu,
> Could I get a CVE number for this bug?If I could,please tell me how to
> go there.
Sorry - I cannot allocate CVE numbers. You need to contact the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28141
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to dilyan.palau...@aegee.org from comment #0)
Hi Dilyan,
I checked to see if there was interest internally at Red Hat to
implement this feature, but given that it is specific to gccgo
and
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Thanks for reporting this bug. I have checked in a small patch to fix the
problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28141
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28054
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28072
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28058
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Niklas Hambüchen from comment #1)
> It would be great if a point release could be made that includes it.
I have added the patch to the 2.36 branch so that any distribution that uses
that
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27484
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Frank Mehnert from comment #13)
> Thanks a lot!
I did not realise that Debian tracked the 2.36 branch tip...
Since it does, applying the patch makes sense. :-)
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27484
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Frank Mehnert from comment #9)
Hi Frank,
> Please consider porting this fix to the binutils 2.36 branch. I have the
> same problem there. Thanks!
We are about to make a new release (2.37 -
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27659
--- Comment #18 from Nick Clifton ---
Sorry about that - I have removed the accidental commit.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28058
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Niklas Hambüchen from comment #1)
> It would be great if a point release could be made that includes it.
Sorry - since we are just about to make a new release (2.37 - due in two weeks
time)
|--- |FIXED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Yuri,
Thanks for raising this problem. I have checked in a patch to the mainline
sources to fix the issue, but I have decided to leave the 2.37 branch
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28053
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
*** Bug 28052 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
|--- |DUPLICATE
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Duplicate patch submission
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 28053 ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Yuri,
Thanks for alerting us to these spelling mistakes.
I have now checked in your patch.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
|REOPENED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #15 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
Hi H.J.
With the patch applied the new linker tests are failing if you run them with
address sanitization enabled
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27659
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Gianfranco from comment #13)
> sure, maybe something like this:
Err, I am not sure which sources you are using, but the patch that you
suggested has already been applied ... and in fact
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27659
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
601 - 700 of 3694 matches
Mail list logo
