Sourceware Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||[2.20 regression] gas creates wrong code which results in a test failure in libcrypto++'s sha2 test|
|Product:||binutils||Reporter:||Matthias Klose <doko>|
|Component:||gas||Assignee:||Alan Modra <amodra>|
|Severity:||normal||CC:||bug-binutils, freddy77, zooko|
|Build:||Last reconfirmed:||2009-10-28 06:46:51|
|Bug Depends on:|
diff of disassembled files
sha .s and .o files
Description Matthias Klose 2009-10-27 23:54:55 UTC
The patch to fix PR gas/10704 causes sha.cpp assembled in a way that causes the sha-256 test not to terminate. Undoing the patch runs the test fine. Replacing the sha.o with one assembled with gas having this patch reverted lets the test pass.
Comment 1 Matthias Klose 2009-10-27 23:55:37 UTC
Created attachment 4329 [details] diff of disassembled files
Comment 2 Matthias Klose 2009-10-27 23:56:18 UTC
Created attachment 4330 [details] sha .s and .o files
Comment 3 Alan Modra 2009-10-28 02:53:32 UTC
Simpler testcase: .text .intel_syntax noprefix .space 5480 .byte 0,0,0 0: .space 1620 .byte 0 1: .space 2468 nop jne 1b .space 52 nop jl 0b Without the .intel_syntax this assembles OK.
Comment 4 email@example.com 2009-10-28 08:21:59 UTC
Subject: Bug 10856 CVSROOT: /cvs/src Module name: src Changes by: firstname.lastname@example.org 2009-10-28 08:21:45 Modified files: gas : ChangeLog expr.c gas/testsuite : ChangeLog gas/testsuite/gas/i386: intelpic.d Log message: PR gas/10856 * expr.c (resolve_expression): Only add "left" value to O_symbol expression when the symbol is undefined and different from the original symbol. Simplify negative logic. * gas/i386/intelpic.d: Correct. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.3999&r2=1.4000 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/expr.c.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.78&r2=1.79 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.1573&r2=1.1574 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/intelpic.d.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
Comment 5 email@example.com 2009-10-28 08:24:03 UTC
Subject: Bug 10856 CVSROOT: /cvs/src Module name: src Branch: binutils-2_20-branch Changes by: firstname.lastname@example.org 2009-10-28 08:23:49 Modified files: gas : ChangeLog expr.c Log message: PR gas/10856 * expr.c (resolve_expression): Only add "left" value to O_symbol expression when the symbol is undefined and different from the original symbol. Simplify negative logic. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=src&only_with_tag=binutils-2_20-branch&r1=1.3938.2.27&r2=1.3938.2.28 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/expr.c.diff?cvsroot=src&only_with_tag=binutils-2_20-branch&r1=126.96.36.199&r2=188.8.131.52
Comment 6 Matthias Klose 2009-10-28 10:03:48 UTC
checked that the sha test passes, when sha.o is built with this patch.
Comment 7 Alan Modra 2009-10-28 10:08:48 UTC
Comment 8 Alan Modra 2009-11-05 12:14:29 UTC
*** Bug 10906 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 9 David-Sarah Hopwood 2009-12-13 17:55:22 UTC
Any indication of when this fix is likely to get into a release? The more OS distributions as 2.20 goes into, the more problems this bug will cause.
Comment 10 Zooko O'Whielacronx 2009-12-13 21:00:41 UTC
This launchpad page tracks the increasing number of OS distributions and open source projects that are being negatively affected by the bug in 2.20: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fedora/+source/binutils/+bug/461303
Comment 11 email@example.com 2009-12-14 09:04:48 UTC
Subject: Re: [2.20 regression] gas creates wrong code which results in a test failure in libcrypto++'s sha2 test On Dec 13, 2009, at 6:55 PM, david-sarah at jacaranda dot org wrote: > > ------- Additional Comments From david-sarah at jacaranda dot org 2009-12-13 17:55 ------- > Any indication of when this fix is likely to get into a release? The more OS > distributions as 2.20 goes into, the more problems this bug will cause. I agree that this is annoying. What about a 2.20.1 release in January ? Tristan.
Comment 12 Zooko O'Whielacronx 2010-07-06 04:44:56 UTC
Hey folks, some distributions such as MinGW have still not patched their version of binutils or reverted to binutils 2.19: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2913876&group_id=2435&atid=102435 This is still causing problems for my users: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/853 If you folks could go ahead and release a binutil 2.20.1 then that might stimulate distributors like MinGW to upgrade to it and that would fix the problem for my users. Thanks!
Comment 13 Zooko O'Whielacronx 2010-12-19 18:18:07 UTC
binutils 2.20.1, released 2010-03-03, does *not* have the ChangeLog entry from http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10856#c5 but *does* have the patch to expr.c. Weird. But I guess it is fixed in binutils 2.20.1.