From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932068AbZHTVuy (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:50:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751851AbZHTVux (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:50:53 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:34386 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752853AbZHTVuw (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:50:52 -0400 Subject: Re: kernel segv with 2.6.31-rc6 ? From: James Bottomley To: Helge Deller Cc: John David Anglin , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dave.anglin@nrc.ca, roland@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <4A8DC3ED.4060005@gmx.de> References: <20090820185550.979544E7A@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <4A8DC3ED.4060005@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:50:49 -0600 Message-Id: <1250805049.4302.121.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 23:45 +0200, Helge Deller wrote: > On 08/20/2009 08:55 PM, John David Anglin wrote: > >> The reason seems to be, that something in the newer gcc compilers changed to generate multiple sections all named ".text" for the PCREL17 relocations. > >> Older compilers named those sections ".text.1", ".text.2", ".text.3" and so forth. > > > > GCC has never generated ".text.1", etc, on parisc linux as far as I know. > > Hmm, I don't like to disagree with an gcc-expert like you,but > I did pasted an objdump in my last mail, which shows that gcc did > generated .text.1, .text.2 and so on: > > Sections: > Idx Name Size VMA LMA File off Algn > 0 .text 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000034 2**0 > CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, CODE > ... > 4 .text.1 00000000 00000000 00000000 000000b0 2**0 > CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, CODE Since this is a relinked object, might it be possible that ld rather than gcc is the culprit? James