[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BFD internal error while compiling lapack

From: Glen W. Mabey
Subject: Re: BFD internal error while compiling lapack
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:21:05 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:31:33AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:45:55PM -0500, Glen W. Mabey wrote:
> > I am using binutils version 2.16.1cvs20060413-1 from debian sarge, and
> Hmm, I wonder what debian have done to binutils?  You probably should
> report this problem to them if it persists.

Well, I did email the maintainer (I didn't file a bug report) hoping he
might volunteer some input, but I haven't received any reply.

> > ar cr ../lapack_LINUX.a zbdsqr.o zgbbrd.o zgbcon.o zgbequ.o zgbrfs.o
> > 
> > < snip the listing of a whole bunch more .o files >
> > 
> > BFD: BFD 2.16.91 20060413 Debian GNU/Linux internal error, aborting at 
> > ../../bfd/elfcode.h line 190 in bfd_elf32_swap_symbol_in
> This error means that a symbol has an st_shndx field equal to 0xffff,
> but no SHT_SYMTAB_SHNDX section was found.
> ELF symbols normally only use 16-bit section indices.  0xffff should
> only occur if the object has more than 64k sections.  I think that is
> unlikely for lapack, so the error is probably due to some sort of file
> corruption.

Humm.  The problem was consistent -- I did re-extract and re-compile the
sources multiple times.  And there were issues when both g77-3.4 and
g77-2.95 were used for compilation.

Then, when I used those same compiler versions under a different release
of debian, (and consequently a different version of binutils) there were
no errors at all.

So, I now have a workaround, but it really would be nice if it would all
work under debian etch.

Thank you,
Glen Mabey

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]