This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] [RFC] nios2: Fix initial PLT entry population
- From: Marek Vasut <marex at denx dot de>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, "Chung-Lin Tang" <cltang at codesourcery dot com>, Ley Foon Tan <lftan dot linux at gmail dot com>, Thomas Chou <thomas at wytron dot com dot tw>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:46:11 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] nios2: Fix initial PLT entry population
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1448723082-6208-1-git-send-email-marex at denx dot de> <565B6FD2 dot 4060901 at codesourcery dot com>
On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:36:18 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> [resending to correct mailing list address]
> On 11/28/2015 08:04 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > When compiling the "orc" package using OE, the following assertion
> > triggers:
> > .../sysroots/x86_64-linux/usr/libexec/nios2-poky-linux/gcc/nios2-poky-li
> > nux/5.2.0/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.25.1 assertion fail
> > .../work/x86_64-linux/binutils-cross-nios2/2.25.1-r0/git/bfd/elf32-nios2.
> > c:1038
> This is not enough information for me to reproduce the error using
> mainline sources (what is the "orc" package? what is "OE"?). Can you
> try to provide some sort of standalone reproducible testcase? E.g. can
> you bundle up all the objects you're trying to link into a tarball and
> attach it to a bugzilla issue, along with the exact linker command line
> and any custom linker script you might be using?
I can do that, but I didn't find the bug in bugzilla. Shall I create a new one?
In the meantime, I pushed the whole tarball from the build to , sha1sum is
You can find the entire build log in orc-0.4.23-r0/temp/log.do_compile.7916 ,
the objects are located in orc-0.4.23-r0/build/ directory and the source is
in the orc-0.4.23-r0/orc-0.4.23/ directory.
> Your patch doesn't look correct to me. I have some suspicions about
> what might be wrong, but I need to be able to play with the code on the
> test case that is failing a bit to propose a solution.
> BTW, you are correct to be concerned about ABI conformance.... the code
> that is being emitted now is specified in the ABI documentation.
Right, that's the document I was studying.