Hi,
On 2/18/26 7:31 AM, Clemens Lang wrote:
Hi,
On 18. Feb 2026, at 14:22, Clemens Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
This makes me think the problem is somewhere in the toolchain, either in the
compiler & linker, or in annocheck. Since the resulting binary does in fact not
seem to have a .note.gnu.property section, I’m guessing it’s the former. The exact
same code does not have the problem on F44, so something must recently have changed
on rawhide.
Some more evidence:
$ podman run --rm -it registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:43
[root@b1434eb03aab /]# touch empty.c
[root@b1434eb03aab /]# gcc -mbranch-protection=standard -c -o empty.o empty.c
[root@b1434eb03aab /]# readelf -n empty.o
Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.property
Owner Data size Description
GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0
Properties: AArch64 feature: BTI, PAC, GCS
$ podman run --rm -it registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide bash
[root@f7a05437cc6d /]# touch empty.c
[root@f7a05437cc6d /]# gcc -mbranch-protection=standard -c -o empty.o empty.c
[root@f7a05437cc6d /]# readelf -n empty.o; echo $?
0
Try checking with 'readelf -a |grep Tag' you may just be seeing the
result of binutils moving the tag bits from the gnu notes section to the
eabi_features fields for intermediate object files. If you link that
empty.o to a main.o the resulting a.out will have the proper gnu notes set.
Seems to be at first glance caused by a patch in binutils bein dropped.
n
Seems like GCC in rawhide doesn’t generate this anymore.
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
