https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.41
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #33 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=1bb82b89ae9d884016e55f2ade99c74fcc92a581
commit 1bb82b89ae9d884016e55f2ade99c74
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://sourceware.org/pipe
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #29)
> Created attachment 14590 [details]
> Augmented^2 patch
LGTM. Please send it to the binutils mailing list. Thanks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You ar
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #30 from Rainer Orth ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #28)
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #27)
> > Created attachment 14577 [details]
> > Augmented patch, incorporating review comments
>
> expected_tls_le should be u
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #29 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 14590
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14590&action=edit
Augmented^2 patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #28 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #27)
> Created attachment 14577 [details]
> Augmented patch, incorporating review comments
expected_tls_le should be unsigned int. The check will be
if (r_type_tls == e
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #14568|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #25)
> Created attachment 14568 [details]
> Augmented patch
@@ -2853,9 +2866,18 @@ elf_i386_relocate_section (bfd *output_b
relend
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #25 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 14568
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14568&action=edit
Augmented patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #24 from Rainer Orth -
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
I updated users/hjl/solaris branch. But I have no idea if elf_i386_tpoff
is correct for Solaris.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #22 from Rainer Orth ---
> --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu ---
[...]
> I didn't see R_386_TLS_TPOFF. What happened to
>
> 0030 0b12 R_386_TLS_GD 0004
> __gcov_indirect_call_callee
>
> in input file?
This:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #20)
> The full executable is at
>
>
> https://www.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de/~ro/files/crossmodule-indircall-1-ld.
> tar.bz2
I didn't see R_386_TLS_TPOFF. What ha
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #20 from Rainer Orth ---
> --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu ---
[...]
> What doe Solaris ld generate?
Here are the initial sections of with either linker:
* gas-gld:
08048ff0 <__gcov_indirect_call_profiler_v2>:
8048ff0: 55
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #18)
> > --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
> > Please try users/hjl/solaris branch at
> >
> > https://github.com/hjl-tools/binutils-gdb
>
> Any reason not to keep that bra
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #18 from Rainer Orth ---
> --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
> Please try users/hjl/solaris branch at
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/binutils-gdb
Any reason not to keep that branch in the binutils-git repo on
sourceware? That's
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
P
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth ---
> --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
[...]
> Please provide all linker inputs so that I
> can reproduce i it on Linux.
Now available at
https://www.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de/~ro/files/pr13671.tar.bz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #12)
> While it fixes the two failing ld testcases, during a gcc mainline
> bootstrap I get man errors:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr47793.c (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 10807
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10807&action=edit
assembler output
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #12 from Rainer Orth ---
While it fixes the two failing ld testcases, during a gcc mainline
bootstrap I get man errors:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr47793.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/vol/gcc/bin/gld-2.30.51-tls: BFD (GNU Binutils
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 10801
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10801&action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth ---
As a first step, I've enabled ld-i386/tls.exp and ld-x86_64/tls.exp on
Solaris/x86 and ran the respective tests. The x86_64 tests all PASS,
while for i386 I see the known failure case:
FAIL: TLS GD/LD ->
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
There are many Linux TLS tests under ld/testsuite/ld-i386. But they run
only for Linux targets. Please figure out:
1. Which TLS code sequences are also generated by Solaris GCC.
2. Among them, which TLS trans
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Does it look like a testcase?
[hjl@gnu-bdx-1 solaris-1]$ cat x.c
extern __thread int __gmpfr_flags;
int
_start (void)
{
return __gmpfr_flags;
}
[hjl@gnu-bdx-1 solaris-1]$ cat y.c
__thread int __gmpfr_flags;
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth ---
> --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
[...]
> Please provide one separate testcase in assembly code for each instance
> where ld creates dynamic relocs Solaris ld.so.1 cannot handle.
I'm trying, but I have a h
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #5)
> I don't think it needs to: gcc is careful only to emit those tls relocs
> that the whole toolchain (assembler + linker) can handle. See
> TARGET_SUN_TLS, HAVE_AS_IX86
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
I don't think it needs to: gcc is careful only to emit those tls relocs
that the whole toolchain (assembler + linker) can handle. See
TARGET_SUN_TLS, HAVE_AS_IX86_TLSLDMPLT, and HAVE_AS_IX86_TLSGDPLT. So
f
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
I don't think ld supports Solaris/x86 TLS.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
> --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
> These TLS transitions should be disabled for Solaris.
> Does Solaris support Linux TLS relocations without
> TLS transitions?
The full docs on what Solaris does support
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13671
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
V
34 matches
Mail list logo
