This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Binutils on arm : pls advice me how to proceed

I am having problems applying them to the current CVS version. Almost
all the diffs fail to apply, I've copied an excerpt below. Am I using
the wrong version ?

|RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/coff-arm.c,v
|retrieving revision 1.63
|diff -c -3 -p -r1.63 coff-arm.c
|*** bfd/coff-arm.c     16 Mar 2006 12:20:15 -0000      1.63
|--- bfd/coff-arm.c     10 May 2006 10:05:35 -0000
File to patch: bfd/coff-arm.c
patching file bfd/coff-arm.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 220.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 233.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 246.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 294.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 307.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 1209.
6 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file bfd/coff-arm.c.rej

The versions of the relevant files I see in CVS are :

bfd/coff-arm.c          1.63    2006/03/16
gas/config/tc-arm.c     1.267   2006/05/09
ld/pe-dll.c             1.83    2006/01/31
ld/emultempl/pe.em      1.113   2005/11/24

I also tried your patch against binutils-2.16.1 - that only produced
patch failures in one file (tc-arm.c).


On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:48 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Pedro, Hi Danny,
>    Please accept my apologies in taking so long to reply to your emails. 
>   I have now had a chance to go over them and the patches that they 
> contained and then seemed quite reasonable to me.  I have applied them 
> to my local source tree and checked to see if there were any regressions 
>   - there were not.
>    Unfortunately I do not have an arm-wince system at my disposal, so I 
> cannot check that the (slightly revised) versions of the patches that I 
> applied allow working binaries to be created, so please can I ask for 
> your help ?
>    I am attaching a unified patch which I think contains all of the 
> changes that you suggested, along with a little bit of code tidying. 
> Please could you try applying them to a set of binutils sources (from 
> the mainline of the CVS repository) and testing them to see if they 
> produce working binaries ?
>    One thing I am quite worried about is whether partial linking will 
> work.  (ie using the "ld -r ...." file to create an object file that is 
> an amalgam of several other object files).  I suspect that there might 
> be problems with the -8 bias to branch relocations, but without a test 
> environment I cannot tell for sure.
>    Thanks very much for perserving with your work, and assuming that you 
> can confirm that the patch works, I will be happy to check it in with 
> the ChangeLogs below.
> Cheers
>    Nick
> bfd/ChangeLog
> 2006-05-10  Pedro Alves  <>
> 	* coff-arm.c (ARM_26D, ARM_32, ARM_RVA_32, ARM_SECTION,
>          ARM_SECREL): Mark WinCE versions of these relocs as partial
> 	inplace.
> 	(coff_arm_relocate_section): Adjust addend for WinCE.
> gas/ChangeLog
> 2006-05-10  Pedro Alves  <>
> 	* config/tc-arm.c (md_pcrel_from_section): Force a bias for	 	relocs 
> against external symbols for WinCE targets.
> 	(md_apply_fix): Likewise.
> ld/ChangeLog
> 2006-05-10  Pedro Alves  <>
> 	* pe-dll.c (autofilter_symbollist): Add Dllmain, 		
> 	DllMainCRTStartup, _DllMainCRTStartup and .text.
> 	(autofilter_liblist): Add libcegcc.
> 	(autofilter_symbolprefixlist): Add __imp_ and .idata$.
> 	(generate_reloc): Do not skip sections without a SEC_LOAD flag, 	
> 	they can still contain relocs that need processing.
> 	Skip the .idata$6 section.
> 	(jmp_arm_bytes): New array: Contains byte codes for an ARM jump.
> 	(make_one): Use the new array.
> 	(make_import_fixup_entry): Use .idata$2 instead of .idata$3.
> 	* emultempl/pe.em (MajorSubsystemVersion): Set to 3 for armpe.
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - ;

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]