This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PR bfd/14207 changes vs *-*-nacl* targets
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM, H.J. Lu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
> The problem is _bfd_elf_map_sections_to_segments isn't consistent
> with assign_file_positions_for_load_sections. I don't think it is handled
> properly between _bfd_elf_map_sections_to_segments and
> Also I am not sure if NACL segment layout is compatible with GNU_RELRO.
You can either fix assign_file_positions_for_load_sections for
NACL segment layout or disable GNU_RELRO for NACL.