On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:12:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > Does anyone have a clue why new ld(1) plays so badly with our system
> > toolchain on 8.x (at least)?
>
> Maybe because there is almost 10 years difference between those
> implementations? :-)
>
> In any case, to figure out what is different, just try linking the
> kernel module with the system ld and the ports ld, and comparing
> "readelf -a" output.
Good idea. I've uploaded both outputs if someone wants to take a look.
Not surprisingly, "bad" output is shorter: readelf(1) reported only 16
section headers vs. "good" 18 (missing .got, .gnu_debuglink, and empty
.bss, yet having .eh_frame instead). Haven't look more closely yet:
http://193.124.210.26/readelf.bad
http://193.124.210.26/readelf.good
> Or upload both module versions somewhere, so we can all have a look.
Sure, at the same URL, hello{.c,_bad.ko,_good.ko}. Although it should be
pretty easy to reproduce locally: just install fresh devel/binutils, put
$localbase/bin in front of your $path, and rebuild hello.ko (or any your
favorite module).
./danfe
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
