This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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: New x86 linker testsuite failure


> On 26 Jun 2018, at 14:43, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alan,
> 
>>> Yeah, and the test really does want to error out as the vma/lma given
>>> for .foo isn't possible within the text segment.  The patch
>>> responsible for the regression is "Use offsets instead of addresses in
>>> ELF_SECTION_IN_SEGMENT for non SHT_NOBITS".  I OK'd that one thinking
>>> it was reasonable, but this fail says otherwise.
>> 
>> I think the patch should be reverted for the binutils-2.31 release.
> 
> Fair enough - could I ask that you do that please ?  That I can be sure
> that the job is done correctly... :-)
> 

Apologies, didn’t spot that test failure when I did the patch.

Looking at the test, it’s trying to create a binary of exactly the type
that my code is now allowing.

Section to segment mapping is now done via offsets instead of addresses
for PROGBITS sections, so the following is now ok:

Section Headers:
  [Nr] Name              Type            Addr     Off    Size   ES Flg Lk Inf Al
  [ 0]                   NULL            00000000 000000 000000 00      0   0  0
  [ 1] .bar              PROGBITS        c0100000 001000 000001 00  AX  0   0  1
  [ 2] .bss              NOBITS          c0100001 001001 000004 00  WA  0   0  1
  [ 3] .foo              PROGBITS        00000000 001005 000001 00  WA  0   0  1
  [ 4] .symtab           SYMTAB          00000000 001008 000040 10      5   4  4
  [ 5] .strtab           STRTAB          00000000 001048 000001 00      0   0  1
  [ 6] .shstrtab         STRTAB          00000000 001049 00002a 00      0   0  1

And the BFD code pre my patch after doing the section to segment mapping, would then
revert to using offsets anyway (ignoring the address), in order to support packed
VMAs

I would suggest then that the test is no longer valid?

Looking back at the history
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-02/msg00375.html
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4007
The test only existed as a check against invalid files.


Alan.



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