This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Bug-Squashing Party #7 report]
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at debian dot org>
- To: Phil Blundell <pb at nexus dot co dot uk>
- Cc: binutils at packages dot debian dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:30:39 -0500
- Subject: Re: [email@example.com: Bug-Squashing Party #7 report]
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <1014201071.10191.20.camel@mill>
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:31:11AM +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 00:32, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > As I am trying to push binutils 2.12 (prerelease, at least) out within
> > > the next two weeks, I'd appreciate details... Does it at least show up
> > > in the ld testsuite?
> > Not from what I gather. My ARM isn't running yet, so Philip will have to
> > provide more info on that front.
> I haven't actually checked yet but I'd be surprised if it shows up in
> the testsuite.
> Here's a testcase in C. Compile it with "gcc -fPIC". The number it
> prints should be a valid address - the exact value isn't very exciting,
> so long as it isn't zero.
> [ For those just tuning in, more details of this bug are at:
Tell me more. Apparently both you and Chris can reproduce this, but I
Relocation section '.rel.got' at offset 0x294 contains 2 entries:
Offset Info Type Symbol's Value Symbol's Name
0001068c 00000615 R_ARM_GLOB_DAT 000084e0 foo
This is using the 2.12 branch. Maybe it's something introduced in HJ's
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer