I wrote: > Greg Schafer wrote: > >> Ok. If latest HJL binutils work, we can therefore conclude there was some >> x86_64 bugfix made after binitils-2.17. >> >> Mission - identify the fix, backport patch to 2.17, voila - problem >> solved! No need for ridiculously flippant declarations of build methods >> not working and being insufficient? Yes? >> >> > > The above is based on the assumption that the breakage was > unintentional, and that the necessary change is indeed a small bugfix, > not a big "feature patch". If this assumption is correct, I would tend > to agree. > > I will look through changelogs now to see if there is something relevant. > > I found nothing in changelogs, so I went bisecting. News: binutils-2.17.50.0.1 print an interesting warning: "don't know how to handle OS specific section `.gnu.hash' [0x6ffffff6]". It comes from bfd/elf.c, line 2188. It appears that, in order for the bfd_section_from_shdr() function to return TRUE for such unknown sections, bed->elf_backend_section_from_shdr() must return TRUE.
-- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
