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
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:40 PM, nick clifton <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Max
>> This brings up the following questions:
>> - is it still worth to debug the issue with the recent binutils +
>> older FSF overlay?
> Err, is that possible ? I thought that the "FSF overlay" was the stock set
> of Tensilica specific *.c/*.h files distributed with a binutils release. If
> so then if you are using a "recent binutils" then you surely would be using
> the "FSF overlay" that comes with these sources, not an older one, right ?
Once upon a time I made myself an "FSF overlay" for binutils/gcc/gdb/linux
out of then current versions thereof. That overlay had consistent #defines.
Now stock binutils definitions conflict with stock linux definitions, it makes
no sense to build it that way.
>> (seems like the answer is "yes", because relaxation logic does not
>> belong to overlay)
> Well the relaxation performed by the linker is xtensa specific, so maybe one
> or more of the overlay files do influence the behaviour of the relaxation
> process. (Possibly via the presence or absence of a #define ?)
That's a question for binutils + xtensa expert, which I'm not (yet).
>> - how comes that FSF overlay has different features in different
>> - binutils releases?
> I presume that this is because of bug fixing.
I've no idea. That's why I Cc: Bob Wilson, who's contributed FSF overlay
to binutils, maybe he can shed some light on what was intended with
> My current feeling is: If the problem is fixed in the current release, but
> broken in an older release, then do not worry about fixing the older
> release. Add a requirement to the kernel build to use binutils of at least
> the current version and go on to fix the next bug. :-)