[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bug gold/18959] New: gold doesn't respect alignment of .rodata.str.* se
From: |
koriakin at 0x04 dot net |
Subject: |
[Bug gold/18959] New: gold doesn't respect alignment of .rodata.str.* section |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:11:02 +0000 |
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18959
Bug ID: 18959
Summary: gold doesn't respect alignment of .rodata.str.*
section
Product: binutils
Version: 2.26 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: gold
Assignee: ccoutant at gmail dot com
Reporter: koriakin at 0x04 dot net
CC: ian at airs dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Here's a test case:
$ cat t.s
.section .rodata.str1.2, "aMS",1
.balign 2
.global a
a:
.asciz "ab"
.balign 2
.global b
b:
.asciz ""
$ as t.s -o t.o
$ ld.gold t.o -shared -o t.so
$ nm t.so
00000000000001fc R a
00000000000001ff R b
00000000000012b0 A __bss_start
0000000000001200 d _DYNAMIC
00000000000012b0 A _edata
00000000000012b0 A _end
$ ld.bfd t.o -shared -o t.so
$ nm t.so
00000000000001dc R a
00000000000001de R b
0000000000200290 D __bss_start
00000000002001e0 d _DYNAMIC
0000000000200290 D _edata
0000000000200290 D _end
0000000000200290 d _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
b is properly aligned to 2 bytes with bfd ld, but not with gold.
This happens with any architecture, I found it while working on s390, but it's
readily reproducible with x86_64, i386, etc.
Could possibly be a reason for #18855 if (like s390) relocations with alignment
restrictions are involved, but I have no way of checking.
I'm going to try making a patch for this issue right now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
- [Bug gold/18959] New: gold doesn't respect alignment of .rodata.str.* section,
koriakin at 0x04 dot net <=