Bug 31653 - RISC-V: readelf fails to apply R_RISCV_SET/SUB_ULEB128 relocations: [debugedit 5.0] testsuite: 10 11 19 23 failed
Summary: RISC-V: readelf fails to apply R_RISCV_SET/SUB_ULEB128 relocations: [debugedi...
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: debugedit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: debugedit (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2024-04-18 08:35 UTC by Leonard Hajduk
Modified: 2024-05-15 11:25 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Last reconfirmed:


Attachments
testsuite log (9.92 KB, text/x-log)
2024-04-18 08:35 UTC, Leonard Hajduk
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Leonard Hajduk 2024-04-18 08:35:43 UTC
Created attachment 15471 [details]
testsuite log

While building debugedit-5.0 in a RISC-V nspawn environment, I encountered test failures during the make check phase. Specifically, tests 10, 11, 19, and 23 failed due to unsupported relocation types as indicated by readelf warnings in the logs. The exact messages are:

readelf: Warning: unable to apply unsupported reloc type 60 to section .debug_loclists
readelf: Warning: unable to apply unsupported reloc type 61 to section .debug_loclists

These warnings relate to relocation types 60 and 61, which correspond to R_RISCV_SET_ULEB128 and R_RISCV_SUB_ULEB128, respectively. I am currently using binutils version 2.42, and upon reviewing the readelf source code, it appears that readelf may not yet support these RISC-V specific relocation types.

Given this issue, I propose temporarily skipping the affected tests (10, 11, 19, 23) for the RISC-V architecture to allow for successful test completions while a solution is being developed.
Comment 1 Mark Wielaard 2024-05-15 11:25:21 UTC
I am not seeing this with gcc 13.2.0 and binutils 2.41 as used in the buildbot:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/debugedit-ubuntu-riscv

What (gcc?) generates these new relocations?

Could we get rid of this by grepping out the Warnings?