[Bug ld/29077] RISCV: .align directive interferes with relaxations

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29077 Nelson Chu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gas/29004] various bugs in RISCV version of as

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29004 Nelson Chu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nelsonc1225 at sourceware dot org --- C

[Bug libctf/29547] binutils-2.39: fails to build against cctools nm (no '-B' option support)

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29547 Nick Alcock changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ld/28509] ld riscv: R_RISCV_JAL referencing a preemptible symbol should be rejected

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28509 --- Comment #2 from Nelson Chu --- It probably worth that back to see this one, I totally forgot it... https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-November/118398.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the

[Bug binutils/29532] /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crti.o.debug: file format not recognized

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29532 --- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton --- (In reply to alex_y_xu from comment #2) Hi Alex, I agree that the creation of the corrupt file is not a fluke. It is deliberate. But... > 2. objcopy --only-keep-debug crti.o crti.o.debug The file

[Bug binutils/29532] /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crti.o.debug: file format not recognized

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29532 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab --- Separate debug files are not intented to be used standalone, only together with the corresponding (stripped) objects that contain the .gnu_debuglink reference. -- You are receiving this mail because: Yo

[Bug binutils/29532] /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crti.o.debug: file format not recognized

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29532 --- Comment #6 from alex_y_xu at yahoo dot ca --- yes, the split debug files are not usable on their own. however, they are still supposed to be valid ELF files, and BFD still needs to be able to open them. example: 1. steps 1 and 2 from comme

[Bug binutils/29075] objdump -S does not support debuginfod

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29075 --- Comment #27 from Nick Clifton --- (In reply to Aaron Merey from comment #26) Hi Aaron, > Created attachment 14311 [details] > 0001-bfd-Add-bfd_find_nearest_line_with_alt.patch > Created attachment 14312 [details] > 0002-Add-debuginfod-su

[Bug binutils/29532] /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crti.o.debug: file format not recognized

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29532 --- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton --- Created attachment 14316 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14316&action=edit Proposed Patch Hi Alex, OK, so knowing that this is a problem for GDB as well makes a difference. I

[Bug libctf/29547] binutils-2.39: fails to build against cctools nm (no '-B' option support)

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29547 --- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich --- (In reply to Nick Alcock from comment #1) > Adding an exit status test seems like a good idea, yes. I'll do that in the > next few days (busy, but this is easy and machine time is cheap). > > I don't

[Bug libctf/29547] binutils-2.39: fails to build against cctools nm (no '-B' option support)

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29547 --- Comment #3 from Nick Alcock --- Having nm be a shell wrapper should be fine (I've been testing some of the odder edge cases that way). That's one reason we look through $PATH to find it ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[Bug ld/25501] STT_GNU_IFUNC causes assertion on 64-bit RISC-V

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25501 Nelson Chu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug ld/24226] Need advise on the binutils problem that generating wrong instruction like lw a3,-2048(a5) on RISC-V backend

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24226 Nelson Chu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nelsonc1225 at sourceware dot org --- C

[Bug gprofng/29521] [docs] man pages are not in the release tarball

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29521 Ruud van der Pas changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|man pages are not in the|[docs] man pages are not in

[Bug gprofng/29521] man pages are not in the release tarball

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29521 --- Comment #1 from Ruud van der Pas --- Thanks for the feedback. This was definitely not intentional and will be addressed as soon as possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.