egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Tom Vier]

it's an egcs bug. i think it's not aligning instructions properly, cuz
i believe the 601 is more strict about alignment. is anyone having
problems using bsd_comp.o, ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o on a non-601
machine built under pre-R5 (egcs-1.1.1-1c)?

i rebuilt bsd_comp.o and ppp_deflate.o w/ egcs-1.0-2e from dr3 and
they worked perfectly.

egcs-1.1.1-1c failed using -O0, -O2, and -O3 with all combinations of
-mcpu=601, -mcpu=604, and -fno-schedule-insns. -fpic did work, however
it addes an offset table symbol that makes insmod complain.

is this a know problem?

> > Feb 21 09:36:18 zero insmod: /lib/modules/2.0.37-osfmach3/net/bsd_comp.o:
> > Unhandled relocation of type 26 for .L343

--
Tom Vier - 0x82B007A8
thomass@erols.com        | goto the Zero Page at:
Tortured Souls Software  | http://www.erols.com/thomassr/zero/



[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

RE: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Gary Thomas]

On 22-Feb-99 Tom Vier wrote:
> 
> it's an egcs bug. i think it's not aligning instructions properly, cuz
> i believe the 601 is more strict about alignment. is anyone having
> problems using bsd_comp.o, ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o on a non-601
> machine built under pre-R5 (egcs-1.1.1-1c)?
> 
> i rebuilt bsd_comp.o and ppp_deflate.o w/ egcs-1.0-2e from dr3 and
> they worked perfectly.
> 
> egcs-1.1.1-1c failed using -O0, -O2, and -O3 with all combinations of
> -mcpu=601, -mcpu=604, and -fno-schedule-insns. -fpic did work, however
> it addes an offset table symbol that makes insmod complain.
> 
> is this a know problem?
> 
>> > Feb 21 09:36:18 zero insmod: /lib/modules/2.0.37-osfmach3/net/bsd_comp.o:
>> > Unhandled relocation of type 26 for .L343
> 

I think you need newer binutils to fix this.  Try using:
  ftp://ftp.linuxppc.org/linuxppc/users/gdt/redhat/RPMS/ppc/binutils-2.9.1-19a.ppc.rpm


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                              |
email: gdt@linuxppc.org                  | "Fine wine is a necessity of
   ... opinions expressed here are mine  |        life for me"
       and no one else would claim them! |
                                         |      Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

RE: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Tom Vier]

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Gary Thomas wrote:

> On 22-Feb-99 Tom Vier wrote:
> > it's an egcs bug. i think it's not aligning instructions properly, cuz
> > i believe the 601 is more strict about alignment. is anyone having
> > problems using bsd_comp.o, ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o on a non-601
> > machine built under pre-R5 (egcs-1.1.1-1c)?

> > egcs-1.1.1-1c failed using -O0, -O2, and -O3 with all combinations of
> > -mcpu=601, -mcpu=604, and -fno-schedule-insns. -fpic did work, however
> > it addes an offset table symbol that makes insmod complain.
> > 
> > is this a know problem?

> I think you need newer binutils to fix this.  Try using:
>   ftp://ftp.linuxppc.org/linuxppc/users/gdt/redhat/RPMS/ppc/binutils-2.9.1-19a.ppc.rpm

no, it's an egcs bug, i believe. i'm already running
binutils-2.9.1.0.19a-1a from the current pre-R5. i'm download those
egcs rpms from your dir, right now, which fred bacon told me have
VTABLE_THUNKS disabled.

--
Tom Vier - 0x82B007A8
thomass@erols.com        | goto the Zero Page at:
Tortured Souls Software  | http://www.erols.com/thomassr/zero/




[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

RE: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Tom Vier]

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Tom Vier wrote:

> > I think you need newer binutils to fix this.  Try using:
> >   ftp://ftp.linuxppc.org/linuxppc/users/gdt/redhat/RPMS/ppc/binutils-2.9.1-19a.ppc.rpm
> 
> no, it's an egcs bug, i believe. i'm already running
> binutils-2.9.1.0.19a-1a from the current pre-R5. i'm download those
> egcs rpms from your dir, right now, which fred bacon told me have
> VTABLE_THUNKS disabled.

nevermind, i just heard VTABLE_THUNKS is c++ stuff. i'm trying the
latest pre-pre-R5 egcs ;)

--
Tom Vier - 0x82B007A8
thomass@erols.com        | goto the Zero Page at:
Tortured Souls Software  | http://www.erols.com/thomassr/zero/


[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

Re: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Franz Sirl]

At 15:36 22.02.99 , Tom Vier wrote:
>
>it's an egcs bug. i think it's not aligning instructions properly, cuz
>i believe the 601 is more strict about alignment. is anyone having
>problems using bsd_comp.o, ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o on a non-601
>machine built under pre-R5 (egcs-1.1.1-1c)?

What makes you think that it is an egcs bug? I have no problems on 601
(7200/75) with any of the modules you listed. Are you sure you have the
latest modutils (2.1.121 or later) installed?

>i rebuilt bsd_comp.o and ppp_deflate.o w/ egcs-1.0-2e from dr3 and
>they worked perfectly.
>
>egcs-1.1.1-1c failed using -O0, -O2, and -O3 with all combinations of
>-mcpu=601, -mcpu=604, and -fno-schedule-insns. -fpic did work, however
>it addes an offset table symbol that makes insmod complain.
>
>is this a know problem?
>
>> > Feb 21 09:36:18 zero insmod: /lib/modules/2.0.37-osfmach3/net/bsd_comp.o:
>> > Unhandled relocation of type 26 for .L343

Is "Unhandled relocation of type 26" the behaviour for standard compilation
or for -fpic? You can't compile a kernel/modules with -fpic and expect
modutils still to work, modutils only handles the minimum necessary
relocation types.

Franz.


[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

Re: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Tom Vier]

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Franz Sirl wrote:

> At 15:36 22.02.99 , Tom Vier wrote:
> >
> >it's an egcs bug. i think it's not aligning instructions properly, cuz
> >i believe the 601 is more strict about alignment. is anyone having
> >problems using bsd_comp.o, ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o on a non-601
> >machine built under pre-R5 (egcs-1.1.1-1c)?
> 
> What makes you think that it is an egcs bug? I have no problems on 601
> (7200/75) with any of the modules you listed. Are you sure you have the
> latest modutils (2.1.121 or later) installed?

it is an egcs bug. egcs-1.1.1-1c failss to build working bsd_comp.o,
ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o; egcs-1.0-2e.ppc.rpm builds it perfectly. i'm
getting a newer build of egcs right now, to see if it's fixed.

> >i rebuilt bsd_comp.o and ppp_deflate.o w/ egcs-1.0-2e from dr3 and
> >they worked perfectly.
> >
> >egcs-1.1.1-1c failed using -O0, -O2, and -O3 with all combinations of
> >-mcpu=601, -mcpu=604, and -fno-schedule-insns. -fpic did work, however
> >it addes an offset table symbol that makes insmod complain.
> >> > Feb 21 09:36:18 zero insmod: /lib/modules/2.0.37-osfmach3/net/bsd_comp.o:
> >> > Unhandled relocation of type 26 for .L343
> 
> Is "Unhandled relocation of type 26" the behaviour for standard compilation
> or for -fpic? You can't compile a kernel/modules with -fpic and expect
> modutils still to work, modutils only handles the minimum necessary
> relocation types.

the unhandled relocation was from egcs-1.1.1-1c using the standard
flags (no -fpic). i didn't expect it work w/ -fpic, but i thought it
might work better and it appears to, since it stopped insmod from
complaining about relocations and instead complain about the symbol
offset table (though it may just complain about the offset table
before finding the relocation problem, thus -fpic might not actually
make a difference).

--
Tom Vier - 0x82B007A8
thomass@erols.com        | goto the Zero Page at:
Tortured Souls Software  | http://www.erols.com/thomassr/zero/


[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

Re: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Franz Sirl]

Am Tue, 23 Feb 1999 schrieb Tom Vier:
>On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Franz Sirl wrote:
>
>> At 15:36 22.02.99 , Tom Vier wrote:
>> >
>> >it's an egcs bug. i think it's not aligning instructions properly, cuz
>> >i believe the 601 is more strict about alignment. is anyone having
>> >problems using bsd_comp.o, ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o on a non-601
>> >machine built under pre-R5 (egcs-1.1.1-1c)?
>> 
>> What makes you think that it is an egcs bug? I have no problems on 601
>> (7200/75) with any of the modules you listed. Are you sure you have the
>> latest modutils (2.1.121 or later) installed?
>
>it is an egcs bug. egcs-1.1.1-1c failss to build working bsd_comp.o,
>ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o; egcs-1.0-2e.ppc.rpm builds it perfectly. i'm
>getting a newer build of egcs right now, to see if it's fixed.

What is the problem with these modules? Give a better description on what you
mean with "working"? They work perfectly for me with a self-compiled 2.2.1
kernel, and I compiled working modules with multiple kernel versions since the
egcs-1.1 alpha phase.
If your only problem is the "unhandled relocation type", install a newer
modutils package (>=2.1.121), that will fix it.

Franz.


[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

Re: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Gary Thomas]

On 23-Feb-99 Franz Sirl wrote:
> 
> Am Tue, 23 Feb 1999 schrieb Tom Vier:
>>On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Franz Sirl wrote:
>>
>>> At 15:36 22.02.99 , Tom Vier wrote:
>>> >
>>> >it's an egcs bug. i think it's not aligning instructions properly, cuz
>>> >i believe the 601 is more strict about alignment. is anyone having
>>> >problems using bsd_comp.o, ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o on a non-601
>>> >machine built under pre-R5 (egcs-1.1.1-1c)?
>>> 
>>> What makes you think that it is an egcs bug? I have no problems on 601
>>> (7200/75) with any of the modules you listed. Are you sure you have the
>>> latest modutils (2.1.121 or later) installed?
>>
>>it is an egcs bug. egcs-1.1.1-1c failss to build working bsd_comp.o,
>>ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o; egcs-1.0-2e.ppc.rpm builds it perfectly. i'm
>>getting a newer build of egcs right now, to see if it's fixed.
> 
> What is the problem with these modules? Give a better description on what you
> mean with "working"? They work perfectly for me with a self-compiled 2.2.1
> kernel, and I compiled working modules with multiple kernel versions since the
> egcs-1.1 alpha phase.
> If your only problem is the "unhandled relocation type", install a newer
> modutils package (>=2.1.121), that will fix it.
> 

Sadly he can't use that modutils package as it's only for 2.1.xx and 2.2.xx
kernels.

Tom,  Can you try the 2.2.xx kernels and see if they work for you?  This would
be a much better way to spend your time rather than looking after a quite old
kernel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                              |
email: gdt@linuxppc.org                  | "Fine wine is a necessity of
   ... opinions expressed here are mine  |        life for me"
       and no one else would claim them! |
                                         |      Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

Re: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Franz Sirl]

At 10:53 24.02.99 , Gary Thomas wrote:

>On 23-Feb-99 Franz Sirl wrote:
>>
>> Am Tue, 23 Feb 1999 schrieb Tom Vier:
>>>On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Franz Sirl wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 15:36 22.02.99 , Tom Vier wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >it's an egcs bug. i think it's not aligning instructions properly, cuz
>>>> >i believe the 601 is more strict about alignment. is anyone having
>>>> >problems using bsd_comp.o, ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o on a non-601
>>>> >machine built under pre-R5 (egcs-1.1.1-1c)?
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that it is an egcs bug? I have no problems on 601
>>>> (7200/75) with any of the modules you listed. Are you sure you have the
>>>> latest modutils (2.1.121 or later) installed?
>>>
>>>it is an egcs bug. egcs-1.1.1-1c failss to build working bsd_comp.o,
>>>ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o; egcs-1.0-2e.ppc.rpm builds it perfectly. i'm
>>>getting a newer build of egcs right now, to see if it's fixed.
>>
>> What is the problem with these modules? Give a better description on 
>> what you
>> mean with "working"? They work perfectly for me with a self-compiled 2.2.1
>> kernel, and I compiled working modules with multiple kernel versions 
>> since the
>> egcs-1.1 alpha phase.
>> If your only problem is the "unhandled relocation type", install a newer
>> modutils package (>=2.1.121), that will fix it.
>>
>
>Sadly he can't use that modutils package as it's only for 2.1.xx and 2.2.xx
>kernels.
>
>Tom,  Can you try the 2.2.xx kernels and see if they work for you?  This would
>be a much better way to spend your time rather than looking after a quite old
>kernel.

Or try to recompile the modutils (or modules package, as it was called 
before) he is using with the appended patch.

Franz.

Index: obj_ppc.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/modutils/obj/obj_ppc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -r1.1 obj_ppc.c
--- obj_ppc.c   1997/09/10 22:20:03     1.1
+++ obj_ppc.c   1998/06/24 01:47:42
@@ -148,6 +148,11 @@
       *loc = (*loc & ~0x03fffffc) | (v & 0x03fffffc);
       break;

+    case R_PPC_REL32:
+      v -= dot;
+      *loc = v;
+      break;
+
     case R_PPC_ADDR32:
       *loc = v;
       break;


[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

Re: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Tom Vier]

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Gary Thomas wrote:

> Sadly he can't use that modutils package as it's only for 2.1.xx and 2.2.xx
> kernels.
> 
> Tom,  Can you try the 2.2.xx kernels and see if they work for you?
> This would 
> be a much better way to spend your time rather than looking after a quite old
> kernel.

actually modutils 2.1.121 works, except of course for kerneld. 8)
unfortunately, linuxppc won't (yet) run on my 7100/80 and mk doesn't
(yet) run 2.2.x

--
Tom Vier - 0x82B007A8
thomass@erols.com        | goto the Zero Page at:
Tortured Souls Software  | http://www.erols.com/thomassr/zero/




[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

Re: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Tom Vier]

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Franz Sirl wrote:

> >it is an egcs bug. egcs-1.1.1-1c failss to build working bsd_comp.o,
> >ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o; egcs-1.0-2e.ppc.rpm builds it perfectly. i'm
> >getting a newer build of egcs right now, to see if it's fixed.
> 
> What is the problem with these modules? Give a better description on what you
> mean with "working"? They work perfectly for me with a self-compiled 2.2.1
> kernel, and I compiled working modules with multiple kernel versions
> since the 
> egcs-1.1 alpha phase.
> If your only problem is the "unhandled relocation type", install a newer
> modutils package (>=2.1.121), that will fix it.

yup, that fixed it. 8) i wonder what changed in egcs between 1.0 and
1.1.1 that makes the problem arise.

--
Tom Vier - 0x82B007A8
thomass@erols.com        | goto the Zero Page at:
Tortured Souls Software  | http://www.erols.com/thomassr/zero/


[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]

Re: egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)

[Michel Lanners]

On  23 Feb, this message from Tom Vier echoed through cyberspace:
[snip]
>> >egcs-1.1.1-1c failed using -O0, -O2, and -O3 with all combinations of
>> >-mcpu=601, -mcpu=604, and -fno-schedule-insns. -fpic did work, however
>> >it addes an offset table symbol that makes insmod complain.
>> >> > Feb 21 09:36:18 zero insmod: /lib/modules/2.0.37-osfmach3/net/bsd_comp.o:
>> >> > Unhandled relocation of type 26 for .L343
>> 
>> Is "Unhandled relocation of type 26" the behaviour for standard compilation
>> or for -fpic? You can't compile a kernel/modules with -fpic and expect
>> modutils still to work, modutils only handles the minimum necessary
>> relocation types.

Just to make sure we all talk about the same things, there was an issue
with relocation of kernel modules some time ago when we moved to a
newer version of egcs, which needed a newer version of modutils to be
able to handle that new relocation.

The modutils version to use is 2.1.121. If nowhere else, you can find a
binary on my site (see below).

Now, I may be completely off track, and this problem now is something
completely different ;-)

Michel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Lanners                 |  " Read Philosophy.  Study Art.
23, Rue Paul Henkes            |    Ask Questions.  Make Mistakes.
L-1710 Luxembourg              |
email   mlan@cpu.lu            |
http://www.cpu.lu/~mlan        |                     Learn Always. "


[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]