[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segme
From: |
hjl.tools at gmail dot com |
Subject: |
[Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 06:41:17 +0000 |
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #14)
> > @Szabolcs: If you rebuild gcc-8 on Debian testing with "--enable-cet=auto"
> > added to CONFARGS in debian/rules2, then you should be able to reproduce the
> > musl-gcc crash (after removing the --build-id workaround from
> > musl-gcc.specs!).
> >
> > (It appears that "--enable-cet=auto" is the important difference between
> > Arch's
> > and Debian's GCC packages.)
>
> thanks, i could reproduce the issue:
>
> it seems ld tries to add a dummy .note.gnu.property to force the
> program headers into a load segment, but if there is already a
> .note.gnu.property in some of the input object files then it just
> tries to merge those and don't add a dummy note at all, however
> the merging rules may produce an empty note in the end and then
> the note section is dropped.
Please try binutils master branch with
commit f7309df20c4e787041cedc4a6aced89c15259e54
Author: H.J. Lu <address@hidden>
Date: Wed Aug 8 06:09:15 2018 -0700
x86: Properly merge GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_USED
Without the GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_USED property, all ISAs may be used.
If a bit in the GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_USED property is unset, the
corresponding x86 instruction set isn\u2019t used. When merging properties
from 2 input files and one input file doesn't have the
GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_USED property, the output file shouldn't have
it neither. This patch removes the GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_USED
property if an input file doesn't have it.
This patch replaces the GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_USED property with the
GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_NEEDED property which is the minimum ISA
requirement.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, evangelos at foutrelis dot com, 2018/08/09
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, nsz at port70 dot net, 2018/08/09
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, evangelos at foutrelis dot com, 2018/08/09
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, nsz at port70 dot net, 2018/08/10
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, evangelos at foutrelis dot com, 2018/08/10
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, hjl.tools at gmail dot com, 2018/08/10
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, evangelos at foutrelis dot com, 2018/08/10
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, nsz at port70 dot net, 2018/08/11
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment,
hjl.tools at gmail dot com <=
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, evangelos at foutrelis dot com, 2018/08/11
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org, 2018/08/11
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, hjl.tools at gmail dot com, 2018/08/11
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, evangelos at foutrelis dot com, 2018/08/11
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org, 2018/08/12
- [Bug ld/23428] ld does not put program headers in a code-only load segment, hjl.tools at gmail dot com, 2018/08/22