Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: tbm at cyrius dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: ia64-linux-gnu
http://sourcew
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-03 10:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=1273)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1273&action=view)
test case
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3169
--- You are receiving th
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-03 10:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=1274)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1274&action=view)
test case
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3169
--- You are receiving th
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-04 20:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=1278)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1278&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3169
--- You are receivi
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-04 20:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=1279)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1279&action=view)
asm
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3169
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-04 22:18 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> _DYNAMIC is a special symbol. I don't think Osprey uses it correctly, if it
> should be used by compiler at all.
Thanks, I'll let them know about it.
--
http://sourcew
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-13 10:22 ---
> > _DYNAMIC is a special symbol. I don't think Osprey uses it correctly, if it
> should be used by compiler at all.
I just noticed that GCC 4.1 and 4.2 use _DYNAMIC as well and lead to this ld
segfaul
Product: binutils
Version: 2.18 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: tbm at cyrius dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gn
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at lucon dot org
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3351
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-12 09:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=1368)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1368&action=view)
object file
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3351
--- You are receiving th
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-12 09:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=1369)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1369&action=view)
assembler
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3351
--- You are receiving th
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-17 14:36 ---
I can still reproduce this. The files are from a standard Debian install and
libgcc.a has been built during the GHDL build process. I'll attach them in a
.tar.bz2.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/ghdl-0.25+gcc4.1.
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-17 14:39 ---
The tar file is just too big to be attached. You can grab it from
http://cyrius.com/tmp/ld-bug.tar.bz2
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-17 15:26 ---
It's Debin's standard 4.1 compiler. There are some patches but I don't think
anything related to IA64. I can try with an unchanged FSF GCC if you really
want. The libgcc I sent comes from GHDL i
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-10-17 19:10 ---
I don't see why these differences would necessary be a "problem". Can you
please elaborate?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3351
--- You are receiving this mail because:
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-03-25 19:22 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Your libgcc from GHDL is wrong. It should be built in the same way as the one
> in
> gcc.
>
> Here is a linker patch to avoid crash:
>
> http://sourceware.or
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-03-25 21:13 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> > What's the status of this patch?
> > It is fixed in the Linux binutils 2.17.50.0.6 or newer.
I was wondering about FSF binutils.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzill
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||tbm at cyrius dot com
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-26 09:39 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>Plus of course any other libraries that these libraries need. :-)
>
> Cheers
>Nick
Nick, would you be interested in an account on a mipsel box so you could
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-26 12:29 ---
Actually, it seems this problem no longer shows up on HEAD.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4988
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-26 15:56 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Actually, it seems this problem no longer shows up on HEAD.
However, I can reproduce it with the 2.18 branch as well as with
2.18.50.20070930. I'll try to narrow it down, but C
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-10-26 17:55 ---
The problem is fixed by
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2007-10/msg00087.html
which happily applies to 2.18.
--
What|Removed |Added
2.19 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: tbm at cyrius dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-24 19:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=2107)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2107&action=view)
libm ARM Debian
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5398
--- You are receivi
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||arm-linux-gnu
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5398
--- You are receiving this mail because
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-28 16:52 ---
Nick,
Thanks for looking at this issue. Your patch works for me. The assertion
is gone and the test suite doesn't have any new failures. Can you put this
into HEAD and the 2.18 branch p
26 matches
Mail list logo
