Binutils on arm : pls advice me how to proceed
Danny Backx
danny.backx@scarlet.be
Thu May 11 04:32:00 GMT 2006
I am having problems applying them to the current CVS version. Almost
all the diffs fail to apply, I've copied an excerpt below. Am I using
the wrong version ?
|RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/coff-arm.c,v
|retrieving revision 1.63
|diff -c -3 -p -r1.63 coff-arm.c
|*** bfd/coff-arm.c 16 Mar 2006 12:20:15 -0000 1.63
|--- bfd/coff-arm.c 10 May 2006 10:05:35 -0000
--------------------------
File to patch: bfd/coff-arm.c
patching file bfd/coff-arm.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 220.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 233.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 246.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 294.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 307.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 1209.
6 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file bfd/coff-arm.c.rej
The versions of the relevant files I see in CVS are :
bfd/coff-arm.c 1.63 2006/03/16
gas/config/tc-arm.c 1.267 2006/05/09
ld/pe-dll.c 1.83 2006/01/31
ld/emultempl/pe.em 1.113 2005/11/24
I also tried your patch against binutils-2.16.1 - that only produced
patch failures in one file (tc-arm.c).
Danny
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:48 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Pedro, Hi Danny,
>
> Please accept my apologies in taking so long to reply to your emails.
> I have now had a chance to go over them and the patches that they
> contained and then seemed quite reasonable to me. I have applied them
> to my local source tree and checked to see if there were any regressions
> - there were not.
>
> Unfortunately I do not have an arm-wince system at my disposal, so I
> cannot check that the (slightly revised) versions of the patches that I
> applied allow working binaries to be created, so please can I ask for
> your help ?
>
> I am attaching a unified patch which I think contains all of the
> changes that you suggested, along with a little bit of code tidying.
> Please could you try applying them to a set of binutils sources (from
> the mainline of the CVS repository) and testing them to see if they
> produce working binaries ?
>
> One thing I am quite worried about is whether partial linking will
> work. (ie using the "ld -r ...." file to create an object file that is
> an amalgam of several other object files). I suspect that there might
> be problems with the -8 bias to branch relocations, but without a test
> environment I cannot tell for sure.
>
> Thanks very much for perserving with your work, and assuming that you
> can confirm that the patch works, I will be happy to check it in with
> the ChangeLogs below.
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
> bfd/ChangeLog
> 2006-05-10 Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
>
> * coff-arm.c (ARM_26D, ARM_32, ARM_RVA_32, ARM_SECTION,
> ARM_SECREL): Mark WinCE versions of these relocs as partial
> inplace.
> (coff_arm_relocate_section): Adjust addend for WinCE.
>
> gas/ChangeLog
> 2006-05-10 Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
>
> * config/tc-arm.c (md_pcrel_from_section): Force a bias for relocs
> against external symbols for WinCE targets.
> (md_apply_fix): Likewise.
>
> ld/ChangeLog
> 2006-05-10 Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
>
> * pe-dll.c (autofilter_symbollist): Add Dllmain,
> DllMainCRTStartup, _DllMainCRTStartup and .text.
> (autofilter_liblist): Add libcegcc.
> (autofilter_symbolprefixlist): Add __imp_ and .idata$.
> (generate_reloc): Do not skip sections without a SEC_LOAD flag,
> they can still contain relocs that need processing.
> Skip the .idata$6 section.
> (jmp_arm_bytes): New array: Contains byte codes for an ARM jump.
> (make_one): Use the new array.
> (make_import_fixup_entry): Use .idata$2 instead of .idata$3.
> * emultempl/pe.em (MajorSubsystemVersion): Set to 3 for armpe.
>
>
--
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20060511/84f4d709/attachment.sig>
More information about the Binutils
mailing list