|--- |FIXED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
*sigh* I knew that I had missed something when implementing -P.
It should work as expected now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27487
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27487
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27487
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27447
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27443
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27521
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27387
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26404
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #6)
> scriptfile defines multiple SECTIONS commands. Each SECTIONS defines exactly
> one output section (for the first implementation we make the scope as narrow
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27484
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27484
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2)
> It didn't.
Hmmm. Please could you upload the tmp.multfile.sh/1 file ?
And the "3" file as well. (If I am reading the description correctly).
--
You are
||nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Hannes,
You are right - more section names are needed. So I have extended
your patch to add the same names that are in DWARF.sc (and in the
same order
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27484
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27486
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> The symbol tables shouldn't depend on the separate debug info files.
Ah - but debug info files can contain symbol tables...
> The info being asked doesn't exist
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27407
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi H.J.
> [hjl@gnu-cfl-2 cpu-rt-c]$ readelf --dyn-syms /lib64/libc-2.32.so| grep
> strchr
> I only want to displace dynamic symbols. Why should readelf care the
> separate debug file?
It c
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27387
--- Comment #13 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Tom,
> > .section.debug_macro.dwo,"e",@progbits
> > .value 0x4 # DWARF macro version number
I think that this may be a clue. It looks like the assembler is creating
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27387
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 Wojciech,
Thanks for reporting this bug. The reason for the original error
message is that the "add.n rN,#8" instruction is valid if rN is
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27408
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27407
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27387
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #6)
> Quick question: do you know where I can find the definition of the
> contents of a .debug_macro.dwo section in the DWARF standard ?
Naturally as soon as I
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27387
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Tom,
> No problem :) , done.
Thanks. Quick question: do you know where I can find the definition of the
contents of a .debug_macro.dwo section in the DWARF standard ? I have looked
and found various
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27387
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27285
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
|1
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Katayama,
I believe that this problem should be fixed by the recent patch
that resolves PR 4356
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27286
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 13215
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13215=edit
Proposed patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
||2021-02-10
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Dennis,
I cannot
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27285
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
Hi Tom,
I do not quite get this:
> - int is_rnglists = strstr (section->name, "debug_rnglists") != NULL;
> + int is_rnglists = strstr (section->name,
||nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Nik,
We are able to run stat() on the file before reading it, so
that can be used to check that it is not a directory.
Patch applied.
Cheers
Nick
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27384
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
||nickc at redhat dot com
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-09
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27355
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27355
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
|RESOLVED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Egor,
Thanks for the bug report. I have checked in your suggested change.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27309
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
|RESOLVED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Eli,
Thanks for the patch. I have gone ahead and applied it.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
|RESOLVED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Eli,
Thanks for the bug report and patch. I have now applied it to the mainline
sources.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27218
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27200
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 13133
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13133=edit
Proposed patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi bzt,
OK, so part of the problem is for the RISC-V, if the the ELF header flags are
zero
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27195
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi H.J.
OK - patch approved. Please apply to the mainline.
I have been talking to Jakub about this and he has persuaded me that your
solution is the best idea.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27195
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> It is done in GCC. But it doesn't always work. If assembly codes have
> DWARF5 ".file 0" or ".loc 0" directives, assembler should turn on DWARF5
> and accept them.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27195
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> I think it is very bad that
>
> $ as -o x.o x.s
>
> fails when x.s contains DWARF5 info generated by GCC 11. Assembler shouldn't
> require --gdwarf-5 to accept
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27037
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27167
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27167
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
||nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Igor,
Thanks for reporting this bug. I have checked in a patch to fix the
assertion in aarch64-asm.c and another in aarch64-dis.c.
Cheers
Nick
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27139
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25713
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25713
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #13090|0 |1
is obsolete|
||
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-04
Resolution|WONTFIX
ty: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: nickc at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: s390
The s390 kernel is currently not building using the latest versions of the
upstream tools. The
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Not to be facetious but did we ever really support -no-pie ?
It does not appear to be documented, and it looks like it is treated
internally as two options: -n and -o-pie.
I have a patch
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26945
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #13007|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26945
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26945
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Nick
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26945
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #13006|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26945
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #13004|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26945
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 13005
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13005=edit
Proposed patch
Siddhesh Poyarekar pointed out a bug in the previous patches. I was calling
fchmod() and
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26945
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #13003|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26945
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 13003
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13003=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Rich,
Ok - here is my first attempt at creating a patch. Please could you give
it a look
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26865
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26865
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #12999|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26865
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Last
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26865
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 12999
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12999=edit
Proposed patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26945
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Last
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26946
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|1
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26931
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
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26520
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||veit.friedrich at gmail dot com
---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26914
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20979
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26918
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26914
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Veit Devil from comment #2)
> is binutils 2.35.1 not the latest version?
Latest released version yes. But not the most recent development version.
The fixes that I mentioned are in the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Martin Liska from comment #9)
> Can't we just change behavior and properly mentioned that in release notes?
I think that that would be a bad idea. I suspect that there are scripts
out
|1
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-19
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Veit,
What
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26918
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 12976
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12976=edit
Proposed patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Ilya,
Does
|--- |FIXED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Tom,
This should now be sorted out.
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=26850
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|ASSIGNED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-11
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26847
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|NOTABUG |FIXED
--
You are receiving this mail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26847
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26841
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 12945
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12945=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Tom,
> Alternatively, we could choose not to make things easier for the compiler,
> and
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26841
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26847
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 12942
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12942=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Martin,
Please could you try out this patch and let me know what you think.
The patch
801 - 900 of 3694 matches
Mail list logo
