[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16218|1 |0 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16226|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16220|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #18) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17) > > How was tmpdir/pr33246-llvm.a.strip generated? How can I reproduce it? > > This is from binutils make check (separate to t

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #16) > $ diffoscope ./build/ld/tmpdir/pr33246-llvm.a.strip > ./build/ld/tmpdir/pr33246-llvm.a > --- ./build/ld/tmpdir/pr33246-llvm.a.strip > +++ ./build/ld/tmpdir/pr33246-llv

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16219|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16218|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING -- You are receiving this mail bec

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 16218 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16218&action=edit A patch Please try this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/33230] [2.45 regression] exec format error after strip

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33230 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #8) > (In reply to Sam James from comment #7) > > H.J., could you backport it? > > (or I can, whatever is fine) Please wait for PR 33246 fix. -- You are receiving this mai

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|NEW -- You are receiving this mail because

[Bug binutils/33246] [2.45/2.46 Regression] strip --strip-debug doesn't work with fat LTO binary

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug binutils/33246] Possible 2.45 regression related to strip and LTO

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33246 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Frederik Schwan from comment #5) > Why is the `-N __gnu_lto_v1` option interacting with the destination file > though? The man page says it's supposed to remove symbols only from the > source file a

[Bug binutils/33230] exec format error after strip

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33230 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC|hjl at sourceware dot org | -- You are receiving this mail bec

[Bug binutils/33230] exec format error after strip

|1 Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com Last reconfirmed||2025-07-30 Target Milestone|--- |2.46 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- A patch is posted at https://sourceware.org/pipermail

[Bug binutils/33230] exec format error after strip

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33230 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com -- You are

[Bug binutils/33213] Add GLIBC_ABI_X86_64_PSABI version to indicate x86_64 psABI compliance for DT_X86_64_PLT* support

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33213 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com See

[Bug ld/33130] GNU2 TLS binary may not work on Linux

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33130 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug ld/33209] Additional GLIBC_2.36 reference in glibc built objects with binutils 2.45

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33209 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #2) > Yes, Andreas Huettel and I were just discussing commit > 9167304255940e29423517f63d11bdd968d7685e (he found it right away). > > This is not at all what I was expe

[Bug binutils/33198] Strip fails to process an archive containing a LLVM bitcode file

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33198 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug binutils/33198] Strip fails to process an archive containing a LLVM bitcode file

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33198 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16200|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/33198] Strip fails to process an archive containing a LLVM bitcode file

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33198 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16197|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/33198] Strip fails to process an archive containing a LLVM bitcode file

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33198 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #4) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2) > > +if [info exists CLANG_FOR_TARGET] then { > + set llvm_plug_so [string trim [exec $CLANG_FOR_TARGET > -print-file-name

[Bug binutils/33198] Strip fails to process an archive containing a LLVM bitcode file

sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 16197 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16197&action=edit A patch Please try this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/33198] Strip fails to process an archive containing a LLVM bitcode file

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33198 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sam at gentoo dot org -- You are receiving

[Bug binutils/33198] Strip fails to process an archive containing a LLVM bitcode file

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33198 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug binutils/33195] strip -R ".gnu.lto_*" doesn't work with LLVM IR

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33195 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug binutils/33195] strip -R ".gnu.lto_*" doesn't work with LLVM IR

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33195 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug binutils/33195] strip -R ".gnu.lto_*" doesn't work with LLVM IR

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33195 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sam at gentoo dot org -- You are receiving

[Bug binutils/33195] New: strip -R ".gnu.lto_*" doesn't work with LLVM IR

Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com CC: nickc at redhat dot com Target Milestone: --- [hjl@gnu-cfl-3 lto-3]$ cat a.c void foo (void) { } [hjl@gnu-cfl-3 lto-3]$ make clang -c -flto -o a.o a.c

[Bug gas/33156] 'Link eh-group.o to eh-group' test fails with default-SFrames gas

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33156 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16169|1 |0 is obsolete|

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 --- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed on master branch so far. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16171|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 --- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Indu Bhagat from comment #17) > Indeed, my proposed patch is not addressing the issue, tests fail. Your > patch does work. Should I submit my patch? -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug ld/33146] sframe: .gnu_object_only contains concatenated SFrame sections

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33146 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |2.45 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- Fixe

[Bug ld/33146] sframe: .gnu_object_only contains concatenated SFrame sections

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33146 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Indu Bhagat from comment #7) > The patch works. Thanks a lot for your help. A patch is posted at https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2025-July/142577.html -- You are receiving this mail be

[Bug ld/33146] sframe: .gnu_object_only contains concatenated SFrame sections

|| Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 16173 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16173&action=edit A patch Try this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug ld/33146] sframe: .gnu_object_only contains concatenated SFrame sections

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33146 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 16172 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16172&action=edit A patch to move gas_sframe_check to binutils-common.exp Together with this: diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-plugi

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu --- (In r

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16169|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16168|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|indu.bhagat at oracle dot com |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16167|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" doesn't remove the sframe relocation against the discarded section.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|"ld -r" is broken with |"ld -r" doesn't remove the

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" is broken with .sframe sections

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- hjl@gnu-tgl-3 tmp]$ /export/build/gnu/tools-build/binutils/build-x86_64-linux/binutils/readelf -rW eh-group.o Relocation section '.rela.eh_frame' at offset 0x2f8 contains 1 entry: Offset Info

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" is broken with .sframe sections

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|"ld -r" is broken with |"ld -r" is broken with |-

[Bug libsframe/33127] "ld -r" is broken with --sframe sections

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|'FAIL: Link eh-group.o to |"ld -r" is broken with |e

[Bug libsframe/33127] 'FAIL: Link eh-group.o to eh-group' (assertion fail elf-sframe.c:122) with default-enabled SFrames

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 16167 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16167&action=edit A testcase [hjl@gnu-tgl-3 tmp]$ /export/build/gnu/tools-build/binutils/build-x86_64-linux/binutils/readelf --sf

[Bug libsframe/33127] 'FAIL: Link eh-group.o to eh-group' (assertion fail elf-sframe.c:122) with default-enabled SFrames

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- I can reproduce it with binutils configured with .../configure --enable-plugins --disable-gdb --disable-gdbserver --disable-libbacktrac e --disable-libdecnumber --disable-readline --disable-sim --enable-default

[Bug ld/33130] New: GNU2 TLS binary may not work on Linux

Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com CC: fweimer at redhat dot com Depends on: 33129, 31372 Target Milestone: --- Target: x86-64 GNU2 TLS binary may not work on Linux without the GNU2 TLS run-time

[Bug binutils/33119] strip: broken symbol indices in shared libraries

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33119 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING -- You are receiving this mail bec

[Bug binutils/33119] strip: broken symbol indices in shared libraries

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33119 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 16155 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16155&action=edit A patch Please try this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/33119] strip: broken symbol indices in shared libraries

at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com Target Milestone|--- |2.45 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/33119] strip: broken symbol indices in shared libraries

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33119 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|strip: broken symbol|strip: broken symbol |ind

[Bug binutils/33049] Heap-buffer-overflow in objcopy when using --interleave and --byte options on a crafted binary input

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |2.45 Status|NEW

[Bug binutils/33050] objcopy crashes due to heap corruption caused by a negative-size memset in bfd_elf_set_group_contents.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33050 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug binutils/33050] objcopy crashes due to heap corruption caused by a negative-size memset in bfd_elf_set_group_contents.

|1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 16145 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16145&action=edit

[Bug binutils/33050] objcopy crashes due to heap corruption caused by a negative-size memset in bfd_elf_set_group_contents.

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33050 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16145|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/33049] Heap-buffer-overflow in objcopy when using --interleave and --byte options on a crafted binary input

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug ld/26675] 32bit build of dxvk fails with binutils 2.35.1

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26675 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug binutils/33078] strip misbehaves on non-LTO static libraries

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33078 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug binutils/33075] objcopy: Segmentation fault in elf_map_symbols

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33075 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug binutils/33078] strip misbehaves on non-LTO static libraries

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33078 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16135|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug binutils/33078] strip misbehaves on non-LTO static libraries

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33078 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug ld/32991] "pushl main@GOT(%ebx)" is mishandled by older binutils

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32991 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug ld/32991] "pushl main@GOT(%ebx)" is mishandled by older binutils

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32991 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #2) > We had a report of this as well but I wasn't sure if it was a bug. These > jumps happen with new relocation types at least. Please open a new bug report if it isn't the

[Bug ld/32991] "pushl main@GOT(%ebx)" is mishandled by older binutils

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32991 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|"pushl main@GOT(%ebx)" is |"pushl main@GOT(%ebx)" is

[Bug ld/32991] New: "pushl main@GOT(%ebx)" is mishandled

ponent: ld Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Target: i386 sysdeps/i386/start.S has # ifdef SHARED pushl main@GOT(%ebx) # else linker relaxed it to 22c: e9 cf ff ff ff jmp200

[Bug ld/32443] ABS symbol value depends on its visibility

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #12) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11) > > Created attachment 16093 [details] > > The final patch > > > > This is the final patch. > > This patch applies code tra

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16097|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16096|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 --- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #25) > Created attachment 16096 [details] > A patch to add .pushuniqsect > > Please retry with .pushuniqsect. Jan proposed to use --sectname-subst. Does it work for you? --

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16095|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16087|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

2025 at 07:15:14AM +, hjl.tools at gmail dot com > > > wrote: > > > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 > > > > > > > > --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- > > > > (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #7)

[Bug binutils/21479] strip doesn't handle lto archives

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug binutils/32967] nm: a-s.o: plugin needed to handle lto object

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32967 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug binutils/32967] nm: a-s.o: plugin needed to handle lto object

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32967 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug binutils/32967] New: nm: a-s.o: plugin needed to handle lto object

Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com CC: sam at gentoo dot org Target Milestone: --- [hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr21479]$ cat a.c extern void foo1(void); void foo2(void) { foo1(); } void foo3(void) {} [hjl@gnu-tgl-3

[Bug ld/32443] ABS symbol value depends on its visibility

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16090|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32443] ABS symbol value depends on its visibility

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16089|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32443] ABS symbol value depends on its visibility

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |2.45 -- You are receiving this mail becaus

[Bug ld/32443] ABS symbol value depends on its visibility

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16088|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32443] ABS symbol value depends on its visibility

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7) > (In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #5) > > > When compiler sees a hidden undefined symbol, it assumes that > > > it is defined somewhere else and it isn't an ABS symbo

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #18) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16) > > (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #15) > > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14) > > > > Created attachment 16086 [de

[Bug ld/32443] ABS symbol value depends on its visibility

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #5) > > When compiler sees a hidden undefined symbol, it assumes that > > it is defined somewhere else and it isn't an ABS symbol. As > > the result, you won't get 0x2a. >

[Bug ld/32443] ABS symbol value depends on its visibility

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16086|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #15) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14) > > Created attachment 16086 [details] > > A new patch > > > > Please use this one. > > I tested the latest patch here togeth

[Bug ld/32443] ABS symbol value depends on its visibility

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #3) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2) > > (In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #0) > > > $ grep . exe.c lib.c lib.lds > > > exe.c:extern void lib_func(void); > > >

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16084|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #12) > Hi H.J., > > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 07:15:14AM +, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_b

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #9) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8) > > (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #7) > > > And, the GCC version I used is 14.2.0, which will generate per function > > >

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16083|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #7) > And, the GCC version I used is 14.2.0, which will generate per function > section of "__patchable_function_entries". Thanks! Now, the question is if GCC should generat

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

||2025-05-13 Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 16082 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16082&action=edit

[Bug ld/32961] ".pushsection" may introduce unnecessary section dependency which impacts "--gc-sections"

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #2) > Thanks H.J. for the comments! > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > > (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #0) > > > > > > If all above is correct, could we cons

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >