From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69EE9DDF6B for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:28:15 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <48882217.5010609@mindspring.com> References: <31a45a6b0f4087a6e54b05241eebc9f94202ffe5.1216681294.git.segher@kernel.crashing.org> <48872AB4.3010001@mindspring.com> <48882217.5010609@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <3c19f5225b292a011665f127c55e58f7@kernel.crashing.org> From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix build bug with binutils < 2.18 and GCC < 4.2 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:27:36 +0200 To: Chuck Meade Cc: linuxppc-dev list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , [putting linuxppc-dev on Cc:, hope you don't mind] On 24 jul 2008, at 08:32, Chuck Meade wrote: >>> I wanted to reply to your original message regarding this, but sadly >>> I >>> had >>> already deleted it. So I am sending directly to you. >>> >>> This patch broke my link. >> >> Sorry. I didn't test with anything _that_ ancient. >> >>> Reverting it, I am again able to link the latest >>> git fetch of the kernel, but with your patch, my ld breaks. >>> >>> I am using binutils 2.15, successfully until this patch was applied >>> yesterday. >> >> What target / what config / what exact GCC version / what >> exact binutils version / why are you using such an ancient >> toolchain anyway? :-) > I have been using gcc 3.4.4 and binutils 2.15 up to this point without > problems. Yes they are not cutting-edge by any means, Updating to GCC 3.4.6 might be a good idea, it's the latest bug fix release in the 3.4 series. I agree PowerPC Linux should still be buildable with GCC 3.4; I don't think we really care about 3.3 or older anymore though. > but the concern > here is that this patch causes the linker to fail for the first time. > Up until now the link has worked fine, and if I revert this patch, the > link continues to work well. Yeah, I understand. I'm not saying you need to upgrade your toolchain (or, I'm not yet saying that anyway; will have to see what causes this problem first); I just said I neglected to test with anything that old. > For one of my customers, we use a customized build system that can > share > cross toolsets for builds of multiple platforms. So the fact that > these tools have worked for us cross several 83xx platforms for a long > time is valuable. It would be highly desirable to have the linker > continue to work. Sure, I'll try my best to find out what is wrong, and fix it for you if possible. > I am very willing to work with you and test the alternative patch ideas > you have for vmlinux.lds.S on my tools here. This patch was in the > general interest of backwards-compatibility with pre-2.18 binutils > anyway. Yes, exactly: 2.6.26 does not build with binutils 2.17. > I can help you by testing on 2.15. Send me alternate vmlinux.lds.S > files > to try, and I will test and get back to you ASAP. No, I will not send you randomly changed source files and hope they will do something useful for you. Instead, why not provide me the information I asked for? What target (arch/powerpc it sounds like?) What _exact_ binutils version (FSF 2.15?) What _exact_ GCC version (FSF 3.4.4?) What Linux config (either the full .config, or the name of a defconfig)? > The link error, in case you were wondering, was: Yes, I forgot to ask for that :-) > powerpc-8325-linux-gnu-ld: final link failed: File truncated What was the command line here? Was it the linking of vmlinux? Segher