This bug was fixed in the package binutils - 2.33-1ubuntu1
---
binutils (2.33-1ubuntu1) eoan; urgency=medium
* Don't generate control file entries for any native mips* packages.
binutils (2.33-1) unstable; urgency=medium
* Binutils 2.33 release (taken from the binutils-2_33 tag)
Thank you Jan!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to binutils in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843394
Title:
FTBFS in Eoan - Error: operand type mismatch for `push' - gcc 9.2.1 /
binutils 2.32.51.2019
Now after we have understood it we know the fix is actually in binutils.
Furthermore any other third party code (or even a few other FTBFS in Eoan)
could be due to that.
IMHO that is a high prio to fix before Eoan as it would not be a new bug bur a
regression.
I'll set it as critical, but it is u
** Changed in: binutils
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to binutils in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843394
Title:
FTBFS in Eoan - Error: operand type mismatc
Fixed for 2.34 by
commit 3f9aad111cea2f25877d0a6b404956769c14faee
Author: Jan Beulich
Date: Fri Sep 20 10:18:15 2019 +0200
x86-64: fix handling of PUSH/POP of segment register
Commit 21df382b91 ("x86: fold SReg{2,3}") went too far: Folding 64-bit
PUSH/POP templates into non-64
** Changed in: ipxe (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Triaged
** Changed in: ipxe (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => High
** Tags added: server-next
** Changed in: ipxe (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Christian Ehrhardt (paelzer)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
Thanks H.J. Lu,
so the change was intentional just as I thought. I'll add this to the thread
[1] I have with the ipxe people then.
If there is anyone here that wants to help guiding [1] please feel free
to chime in there or let me know here and I can pass the info.
[1]: http://lists.ipxe.org/pip
It is caused by
commit 21df382b91de64749e977f185c4e10a5b838
Author: Jan Beulich
Date: Tue Jul 16 09:30:29 2019 +0200
x86: fold SReg{2,3}
They're the only exception to there generally being no mix of register
kinds possible in an insn operand template, and there being two b
Hmm, yes - No_qSuf gets in the way here. Simply removing the attribute
won't work though, I'm afraid. I'll try to find time soon to look into
this. (And I'm surprised there's nothing in the testsuite that would
have allowed me to notice this before even submitting the patch.)
--
You received this
** Changed in: binutils
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to binutils in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843394
Title:
FTBFS in Eoan - Error: operand type mismatch for `pu
Working build with V2 at
https://launchpad.net/~paelzer/+archive/ubuntu/bug-1843394-ipxe-ftbfs
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to binutils in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843394
Title:
FTBFS in Eoan
FYI: feedback indicates this is intentional and we'd need to change IPXE.
My experiments showed that the initial idea isn't good, I'll submit a V2 to
IPXE on the thread already linked here.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is s
Launchpad has imported 1 comments from the remote bug at
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25012.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment
will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about
Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at
https://h
FYI reported upstream:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25012 and linked in this
bug.
** Bug watch added: Sourceware.org Bugzilla #25012
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25012
** Also affects: binutils via
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25012
Note: given that this went into the archive in early July and that nothing but
this section in IPXE broke I lean toward assuming that the ipxe code is broken
or at least (while it worked in the past) not implemented the way it should be
for the assembly to work.
Yet I'm not feeling experienced e
Summary D vs E:
- no suffix
=> works equally in both releases
=> same opcodes in all .code segments
- suffix "w"
=> works equally in both releases
=> opcodes in .code32/.code64 differ from .code16 (660f..)
=> .code16 matches the non-suffix opcodes (0f..)
- suffix "l"
=> failures in Disc
Result Disco:
### Testing suffix '' ###
.code16
push %gs
push %fs
pop %gs
pop %fs
.code32
push %gs
push %fs
pop %gs
pop %fs
.code64
push %gs
push %fs
pop %gs
pop %fs
push.out: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
<.text>:
0: 0f a8 p
Result Eoan:
### Testing suffix '' ###
.code16
push %gs
push %fs
pop %gs
pop %fs
.code32
push %gs
push %fs
pop %gs
pop %fs
.code64
push %gs
push %fs
pop %gs
pop %fs
push.out: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
<.text>:
0: 0f a8 pu
Slightly extending on that test by Valentine I really think this is a change in
binutils behavior.
Attaching a script to test which I then will add logs from Disco (older 2.32)
and Eoan (2.32.51).
The script does:
- test pop/push with suffixes "" w l q
- test this in code 16/32/64 blocks
** Att
Quoting a post of a ipxe related developer that did a nice check
realizing that e.g. disassembly always lists pushq (and opcode stays the
same) - thanks to Valentine for these checks!:
AFAIU, segment registers
are 16-bit long, however, "pushl" and "pushq" should also be valid and
produce the same
FYI: The comparison to Fedora (there it still works) uses binutils
2.31.1-29.fc30.x86_64 still.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to binutils in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843394
Title:
FTBFS in Eoa
** Tags added: ftbfs
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to binutils in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843394
Title:
FTBFS in Eoan - Error: operand type mismatch for `push' - gcc 9.2.1 /
binutils 2.32.5
I have had another dev try this on fedora which also has gcc 9.2.1 and
it works there.
But since it fails in "as" which is actually binutils lets add that as a bug
task.
Maybe binutils developers know something about this?
** Summary changed:
- FTBFS in Eoan - Error: operand type mismatch for `
** Also affects: binutils (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to binutils in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843394
Title:
FTBFS in Eoan - Error: operan
24 matches
Mail list logo
