bug-binutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Bug ld/13991] powerpc-rtems ld failure [regression]


From: ralf.corsepius at rtems dot org
Subject: [Bug ld/13991] powerpc-rtems ld failure [regression]
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:24:25 +0000

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13991

--- Comment #3 from Ralf Cors├ępius <ralf.corsepius at rtems dot org> 2012-04-20 
16:24:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I don't think this is a bug in binutils, but a bug in RTEMS.
> > 
> > cf. http://www.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-users/2012-April/009843.html
> 
> I respectfully think you are completely wrong. That change is a hack in the
> linker script to ignore the start address in __rtems_start that in the linked
> executable. It may be zero on some of the BSP variants using this linker 
> script
> but it is a hack.

My understanding of what is happening is RTEMS's linker script is accessing an
_uninitialized_ symbol, something newer binutils seeming do not allow anymore.

What my "hack" (I call it a fix to a defect in this linkerscript) is to
conditionally initialize it to 0, if it's unused. 

The only change this does is to make an implicit initialization to 0 explict.


> This linker script and procedure has been in RTEMS since around 1999. The file
> only has 3 changes in that entire time. 
>From what I can gather, binutils has changed its behavior.

> http://git.rtems.org/rtems/log/c/src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/shared/bootloader/ppcboot.lds
> 
> The hack may be a work around but ld broke.
No, binutils has changed behavior and RTEMS is victim of this behavioral
change.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.



reply via email to

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