[Bug ld/22846] i686-w64-mingw32 cross linker generates truncated binary image

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22846 --- Comment #3 from Absolute Despair --- Created attachment 10824 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10824=edit bad executable -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/22846] i686-w64-mingw32 cross linker generates truncated binary image

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22846 --- Comment #2 from Absolute Despair --- Created attachment 10823 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10823=edit bad shared object -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/22845] -z separate-code doesn't work right

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22845 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- FAIL: ld-elf/eh4 [hjl@gnu-tools-1 ld]$ /export/build/gnu/binutils/build-x86_64-linux/ld/../gas/as-new --defsym ALIGN=3 --64 -o tmpdir/eh4.o

[Bug ld/22846] i686-w64-mingw32 cross linker generates truncated binary image

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22846 --- Comment #4 from Absolute Despair --- It also silently fails when linking executable images: /* test.c */ #include main(argc, argv) char **argv; { puts("hi bugzilla"); return 0; } compile with: i686-w64-mingw32-gcc test.c -o

[Bug ld/22846] i686-w64-mingw32 cross linker generates truncated binary image

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22846 --- Comment #1 from Absolute Despair --- Created attachment 10822 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10822=edit truncated IAT/GOT -- 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 #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:

[Bug ld/22832] 2.30 internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/elflink.c:9710 in elf_link_output_extsym

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22832 --- Comment #8 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=e513bd38a6b91401947d90ba5f301f01d3991b8e commit

[Bug ld/22727] [2.30, 2.31 regression] Thousands of EH-related execution failures on SPARC

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22727 --- Comment #22 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=e513bd38a6b91401947d90ba5f301f01d3991b8e

[Bug ld/22832] 2.30 internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/elflink.c:9710 in elf_link_output_extsym

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22832 --- Comment #9 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_30-branch branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :

[Bug ld/22727] [2.30, 2.31 regression] Thousands of EH-related execution failures on SPARC

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22727 --- Comment #23 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_30-branch branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :

[Bug ld/22832] internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/elflink.c:9710 in elf_link_output_extsym

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22832 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ld/22840] Several TLS tests FAIL on Solaris/SPARC

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22840 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ld/22758] FAIL: Run pr22393-2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22758 --- Comment #8 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_30-branch branch has been updated by Nick Clifton :

[Bug ld/22758] FAIL: Run pr22393-2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22758 --- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton --- (In reply to Romain Geissler from comment #7) > Given that this > might potentially happen arbitrarily to any user of binutils 2.30 and it is > not so easy to understand that section placement is wrong