This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PR bfd/14207 changes vs *-*-nacl* targets
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <mcgrathr at google dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:15:16 -0700
- Subject: Re: PR bfd/14207 changes vs *-*-nacl* targets
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Roland McGrath <email@example.com> wrote:
> Since the changes to fix bug 14207, I'm now seeing these new failures
> for arm-nacl, i686-nacl, and x86_64-nacl targets:
> UNRESOLVED: strip -z relro (relro1)
> UNRESOLVED: objcopy -z relro (relro1)
> UNRESOLVED: objcopy -z relro (tdata1)
> UNRESOLVED: objcopy -z relro (tdata2)
> These are hitting the abort in assign_file_positions_for_non_load_sections
> added by:
> 2012-06-12 H.J. Lu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> PR bfd/14207
> * elf.c (assign_file_positions_for_non_load_sections): Abort if
> PT_GNU_RELRO segment doesn't fit in PT_LOAD segment.
> (Incidentally, why is that a conditional call to abort instead of a use of
Since this is a real linker bug and should never happen.
> Dropping the new check I do indeed get a bogus PT_NULL header generated.
> So it looks like earlier fix:
> 2012-06-12 Alan Modra <email@example.com>
> PR ld/14207
> * elf.c (_bfd_elf_map_sections_to_segments): Disregard bss type
> sections at end of PT_LOAD segment when searching for segment
> that contains end of relro extent.
> for this issue did not cover all cases. I lack the context that folks like
> Alan have on how this stuff is organized in the linker, so it's probably
> easier for someone else to build a --target=x86_64-nacl configuration and
> debug this than for me to figure it all out myself.
Can you revert Alan's patch and use mine in
to see if it works better for you?