> I'm not well-versed on this, so I'd say that you do as you see more fit (as
> long
> as you don't need to change kernel ABI of course).
We already have different startup, ABI is still only draft, and just
committed interface (via %rdi, %rsi) is equal to standard C calling
interface for "void
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:04:11PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> Changes for 2nd variant are really small, could you please test them.
Works fine. Thanks again, Petr.
> > The definition of argument passing into _startup is in ABI
> > since draft 0.94 (January 2005).
> >
> > %rsp - 16-byte align
Changes for 2nd variant are really small, could you please test them.
Thanks
Petr
> The definition of argument passing into _startup is in ABI
> since draft 0.94 (January 2005).
>
> %rsp - 16-byte aligned pointer to stack, on top of stack is argc
> %rdx - destructor function or zero for
> > More complex programs like grep work fine, too. I'm running glibc testsuite
> > now, and will run coreutils testsuite within a few minutes.
>
> Strange. It seems even though you fixed it for dynamicaly linked binaries,
> static ones do still exhibit this problem (segfault in exit.c:60).
>
>
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 09:13:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:59:21PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> > Hello Robert,
> >
> > one more update, please could you test
> > with sysdeps/x86_64/elf/start.S from previous mail
> > and enclosed sysdeps/x86_64/dl-machine.h
> >
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 09:13:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Works!!
>
> More complex programs like grep work fine, too. I'm running glibc testsuite
> now, and will run coreutils testsuite within a few minutes.
I have committed the list of testsuite failures in trunk/glibc-2.3-head/AMD64.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 09:13:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:59:21PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> > one more update, please could you test
> > with sysdeps/x86_64/elf/start.S from previous mail
> > and enclosed sysdeps/x86_64/dl-machine.h
> >
> > iff it works, I w
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 03:12:03PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> just guess, could you please test attached file instead of standard
> sysdeps/x86_64/elf/start.S ?
Segfault again, also dependant on argv[0] length. This time the backtrace is
a bit different though, see attached
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:59:21PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> one more update, please could you test
> with sysdeps/x86_64/elf/start.S from previous mail
> and enclosed sysdeps/x86_64/dl-machine.h
>
> iff it works, I will write something better,
> but for test this should
Hello Robert,
just guess, could you please test attached file instead of standard
sysdeps/x86_64/elf/start.S ?
Thanks
Petr
/* Startup code compliant to the ELF x86-64 ABI.
Copyright (C) 2001, 2002, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This file is part of the GNU C Library.
Cont
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 09:08:33PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> Robert,
>
> can you please also try
>
> LD_SHOW_AUXV=all /lib/ld-kfreebsd-x86-64.so.1
$ LD_SHOW_AUXV=all /lib/ld-kfreebsd-x86-64.so.1
AT_PHDR: 0x40
AT_PHENT:56
AT_PHNUM:6
AT_PAGESZ: 4096
AT_FLAGS:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 08:12:03PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> The bug is fixed only partially, it is still in kernel,
> now it affect only DYN object,
> EXEC are (on kfreebsd-i386) mapped correctly.
>
> Can you, please, test also following:
>
>
> #inclu
> Uhm that might be explained by ld.so being allocated in 0x0. Sounds like a
> repetition of #336496. Was this a problem in kernel, libc, binutils...?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ /lib/ld-kfreebsd-x86-64.so.1 --list /tmp//h
> libc.so.0.1 => /gnu/lib/libc.so.0.1 (0x000800117000
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 04:45:04PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Test example:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ ./test
> argc = 1
> argv[0] = ./test
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ /tmp/test
> Usage: ld.so [OPTION]... EXECUTABLE-FILE [ARGS-FOR-PROGRAM...]
> You have invoked `ld.so', the helper program for sh
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 03:56:42PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Don't ask me why, but it seems that fixing the problem in binutils (see my
> last
> commit, binutils_elfosabi.diff) solved the segfaults.
>
> I got hello.c to work now.
There, it came back.
I think to summarise, the problem is:
Don't ask me why, but it seems that fixing the problem in binutils (see my last
commit, binutils_elfosabi.diff) solved the segfaults.
I got hello.c to work now.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 09:39:19AM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I made a 64 bit glibc build and it seems to have some trouble:
>
> Please could you:
>
> - add headers/prototypes for printf, exit
This revealed some breakage in my headers due to a mistake during manual install
and pat
Hi!
> I made a 64 bit glibc build and it seems to have some trouble:
Please could you:
- add headers/prototypes for printf, exit
- try it under ktrace
- try "make -k check" in glibc build
Petr
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
Hi!
I made a 64 bit glibc build and it seems to have some trouble:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cat test.c
main ()
{
printf ("hello\n");
exit (56);
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] amd64-kfreebsd-gnu-gcc test.c -g -o test -static ; brandelf
-t FreeBSD test
test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:3: warning: incompatibl
19 matches
Mail list logo
