https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25677
--- Comment #6 from Stephen Casner <casner at acm dot org> --- The key point I did not know is that failures were expected. I have been studying the detail log and the test scripts (I have programmed in Tcl, but it was about 30 years ago) to see why FAIL: extract scripts and the two FAIL: MEMORY failures preceding it occur. The symbol extraction is probably caused by my introduction of pdp11.sc so I can investigate that. The other two occur because the tests assume a word size and address space larger than 16 bits. For example, in ld-scripts/script.exp the "MEMORY with symbols" test sets DATA_LENGTH=0x10000 but I think the choice of a number larger that 16 bits is arbitrary. Would it be reasonable to introduce changes to make the tests compatible with a 16-bit address space? For the test "MEMORY", the failure occurs because nm is not properly treating addresses as 16 bits, and that might be considered a real bug. Here's the output: 00001004 D data_end 00001000 T data_start 00001000 D data_symbol 00001000 D fred 00000104 T text_end 00000100 T text_start 00000100 T text_symbol 00000100 t tmpdir/script.o ffffffffffff8100 D tred For the PDP-11 with 16-bit address space this should more properly be: 1004 D data_end 1000 T data_start 1000 D data_symbol 1000 D fred 0104 T text_end 0100 T text_start 0100 T text_symbol 0100 t tmpdir/script.o 8100 D tred There is pretty clearly a bug where 0x8100 gets sign extended to 64 bits. One side question you might be able to answer for me: where is "fail" implemented? I searched but could not find it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
