[Bug ld/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |2.31 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed for 2.31 and on 2.30 branch. -- 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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 --- Comment #6 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_30-branch branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=19dd615652084b2bfd81a0497864e193608037a0 commit 19dd615652084b2bfd81a0497864e193608037a0 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Fri May 18 06:43:19 2018 -0700 x86: Don't set eh->local_ref to 1 for linker defined symbols Since symbols created by HIDDEN and PROVIDE_HIDDEN assignments in linker script may be marked as defined, but not hidden, we can't set eh->local_ref to 1 in _bfd_x86_elf_link_symbol_references_local. Also R_386_GOT32X should be handled as just like R_386_GOT32 when relocating a section. The input R_386_GOT32X relocations, which can be relaxed, should have been converted to R_386_PC32, R_386_32 or R_386_GOTOFF. bfd/ PR ld/23189 * elf32-i386.c (elf_i386_relocate_section): Handle R_386_GOT32X like R_386_GOT32. * elfxx-x86.c (_bfd_x86_elf_link_symbol_references_local): Don't set eh->local_ref to 1 for linker defined symbols. ld/ PR ld/23189 * testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp: Run pr23189. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.d: New file. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.s: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.t: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.d: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.s: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.t: Likewise. (cherry picked from commit 011b32fd4270fb7111ee1f63695ccd44562ee7df) -- 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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 --- Comment #5 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=011b32fd4270fb7111ee1f63695ccd44562ee7df commit 011b32fd4270fb7111ee1f63695ccd44562ee7df Author: H.J. Lu Date: Fri May 18 06:43:19 2018 -0700 x86: Don't set eh->local_ref to 1 for linker defined symbols Since symbols created by HIDDEN and PROVIDE_HIDDEN assignments in linker script may be marked as defined, but not hidden, we can't set eh->local_ref to 1 in _bfd_x86_elf_link_symbol_references_local. Also R_386_GOT32X should be handled as just like R_386_GOT32 when relocating a section. The input R_386_GOT32X relocations, which can be relaxed, should have been converted to R_386_PC32, R_386_32 or R_386_GOTOFF. bfd/ PR ld/23189 * elf32-i386.c (elf_i386_relocate_section): Handle R_386_GOT32X like R_386_GOT32. * elfxx-x86.c (_bfd_x86_elf_link_symbol_references_local): Don't set eh->local_ref to 1 for linker defined symbols. ld/ PR ld/23189 * testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp: Run pr23189. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.d: New file. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.s: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.t: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.d: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.s: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.t: Likewise. -- 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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- A patch is posted at https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2018-05/msg00182.html -- 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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2018-05-17 Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com Ever confirmed|0 |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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 --- Comment #3 from Baoshan --- I checked a little bit of the code, what I see for this issue the difference between 2.29 and 2.30 is that: For 2.29 the checking if a symbol is hidden is before the calling of function elf_x86_64_convert_load_reloc, but in 2.30 they are in opposite order. -- 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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 --- Comment #2 from Baoshan --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #1) > Hi Baoshan, > > I cannot reproduce this problem using today's mainline development > sources. Please could you check and see if the problem still exists > for you ? > > Cheers > Nick Hi Nick, I don't see any difference with the mainline development sources, I am using the code from: git://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git Can you reproduce the issue with 2.30? Thanks, Baoshan -- 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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Baoshan, I cannot reproduce this problem using today's mainline development sources. Please could you check and see if the problem still exists for you ? Cheers Nick -- 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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 Baoshan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pangbw 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
