On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 01:44:45PM +0100, Duncan Moore wrote: > This is a bug report, but since the bug reporting list has been out of > action for some time, I'm sending it here.
Thanks. We should probably start a new issue tracker on github and migrate across. (apologies for closing some of your bugs on the old system BTW - I wasn't denying they were valid, just trying to reduce the amount of spamming I was getting from bugzilla) > I have ELF and Absolute binaries getting different values of > __riscosify_control from UnixEnv$progname$nonametrans. It's the Absolute > binary that is giving the wrong result, and it only seems to happen when the > binary is run via a RISC OS variable containing the full pathname of the > binary. Hmm... I'm not familiar with that code, but I'm puzzled. As far as I can see elf2aif is simply slapping a pre-baked header on the ELF which does zero-initialisation and then jumps to the ELF's entry point. Beyond a handful of instructions they're identical. __riscosify_control is a weak symbol so there *could* be something different in linking, but here the linked binary is static and the difference is shown with the same linked binary, with and without header. So my guess is either that the header has some subtle side effect on the OS that causes it to do different things, or that SOManager is changing things when a statically linked ELF is run directly. Lee, do you have any thoughts? Theo _______________________________________________ GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
