This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [email@example.com: Bug-Squashing Party #7 report]
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Phil Blundell <pb at nexus dot co dot uk>, binutils at packages dot debian dot org,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:31:18 -0800
- Subject: Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Bug-Squashing Party #7 report]
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <1014201071.10191.20.camel@mill> <20020223003039.A21447@nevyn.them.org>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 12:30:39AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=134241&repeatmerged=yes
> > ]
> 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
I don't believe I have any ARM related changes in 188.8.131.52.2. However,
it is based on the 20020207 CVS.