This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH for Re: binutils 2.15 / gcc-3.3.5 (3.4.3) produce textrelocations on arm
- From: "Peter S. Mazinger" <ps dot m at gmx dot net>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:02:27 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: PATCH for Re: binutils 2.15 / gcc-3.3.5 (3.4.3) produce textrelocations on arm
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:44:39PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > Then could you check whether any of the relocations are actually in the
> > > > text segment?
> > >
> > > How to do that?
>
> Via readelf. readelf -l will show you the offsets and sizes of the
> segments. readelf -Dr will show you the offsets of relocation entries.
> Are any in the text segment?
>
> > >
> > > Could you provide me a patch for the ARM bug you have found (setting
> > > DT_TEXTREL incorrectly)?
>
> Attached.
>
> This is patch 2/2 for today's duplicated-code-in-BFD hatred series. I
> tried to resync with other ports' copies of this code and it proved
> surprisingly twisty, so I took the simple way out. We were creating
> reloc_copied structures with ->count = 0, which are useless and messed
> up the counting algorithm.
>
> Tested arm-linux, binutils and glibc testsuites. Richard or Nick, is
> this patch OK?
tested on uclibc, it "removes" the false DT_TEXTREL from shared libs.
>
> > Nothing changed in the meantime ;-(
> > I have tested binutils-cvs (as of 20050222) and no better.
> >
> > Finally it seems that the DT_TEXTREL entry is coming from assembler
> > sources, C code seems to be linked correctly.
>
> Your assembly sources may be broken (non-PIC) then.
it was, but now it was detectable ;)
>
> > on another note:
> > MAXPAGESIZE=0x8000 (as of bfd/elf.c) for arm, please change that in
> > ld/emulparams/armelf.sh.
>
> Nathan noticed the odd MAXPAGESIZE setting in arm-elf today also. I
> don't know the history.
Please inform me, if you change that (well, I am using it w/ that value
now, the newly added arm stuff also uses it as 0x8000, not as 256)
Thanks Peter
--
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net> ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2