This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: xtensa-fsf-ld: dangerous relocation: call8: call target out of range
- From: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc at gmail dot com>
- To: nick clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, Marc Gauthier <marc at tensilica dot com>, augustine dot sterling at gmail dot com, bob dot wilson at acm dot org
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:59:49 +0400
- Subject: Re: xtensa-fsf-ld: dangerous relocation: call8: call target out of range
- References: <CAMo8Bf+X1Z2=YnAT7zA4Kk36ywnvumn405L1Ui+jMcqFaROv3w@mail.gmail.com> <5005236D.email@example.com>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM, nick clifton <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Max,
>> net/built-in.o: In function `fib_net_init':
>> fib_frontend.c:(.init.text+0x1553): dangerous relocation: call8: call
>> target out of range: (.text+0x3eb38)
>> If I add --no-relax ld option to this link step everything works fine.
>> Can anybody suggest the way to debug/fix it?
> Take a look at bfd/elf32-xtensa.c. In particular the relax_section()
> function. (Compiling with "#define DEBUG 1" might help).
> It looks like linker relaxation on the xtensa is quite extensive however, so
> you may have some trouble narrowing down the exact bug. You could try
> contacting Sterling Augustine, the Xtensa maintainer for more help. You
> might also wish to file a binutils bug report on the problem (at
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/), althpugh if you do this it would be really
> useful if you can include a small test case to reproduce the problem.
thanks for your suggestion. I was trying to make a test case when I found that
I used FSF overlay from older (2.20.1) binutils. With clean
kernel build passes. This brings up the following questions:
- is it still worth to debug the issue with the recent binutils +
older FSF overlay?
(seems like the answer is "yes", because relaxation logic does not
belong to overlay)
- how comes that FSF overlay has different features in different