Issue with binutils-2.23.1-1
Corinna Vinschen
corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Mon Apr 15 17:34:00 GMT 2013
On Apr 15 11:11, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:39:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Apr 15 10:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:48:09PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >On Apr 15 15:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 15 08:54, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> >> >> > Hi All,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 6 March 2013 08:40, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> >> >> > > I noticed a problem after upgrading to the 2.23.1-1 release of
> >> >> > > binutils that cygport was no longer generating debuginfo files. After
> >> >> > > digging in to it a little and following up on the cygwin-ports mailing
> >> >> > > list, Yaakov determined that the objdump included in the 2.23.1
> >> >> > > release of binutils does not handle the "-l" flag properly. Reverting
> >> >> > > to 2.22.51-2 solved the issue for me and Yaakov confirmed that the
> >> >> > > issue does not exist in CVS HEAD either.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This issue has resurfaced in the 2.23.52.20130309 release of bintuils
> >> >> > currently shipping with Cygwin. My cygport based packages are no
> >> >> > longer producing debuginfo packages.
> >> >>
> >> >> Erm... 2.23.52-1 is a 64bit-only package. I created all the debuginfo
> >> >> packages with this version. 32 bit is at 2.23.51-1, and I'm pretty
> >> >> sure I created the latest OpenSSH packages with that version, including
> >> >> debuginfo.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, hmm. The 2.23.51-1 package actually contains the 2.23.52.20130309
> >> >binutils files, so never mind what I wrote.
> >>
> >> Just to be clear: The current 32-bit version of binutils is 2.23.51-1.
> >> It was released to address the problems with objdump introduced by a,
> >> er, "illegal" upload by someone who was confused about binutils
> >> maintainership. There is no 32-bit version named 2.23.52.20130309
> >> or 2.23.1-1.
> >
> >If you run `ld --version' on ld from the 2.23.51-1 package, it returns
> >"GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.52.20130309"
>
> Again, the version that was uploaded in March was to fix the problem
> reported in this thread.
I was just pointing out the version mismatch. The package is called
2.23.51, while the binaries claim to be 2.23.52. I did not comment
on the behaviour.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list