Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64

Ian Campbell
2006-09-26T08:48:14Z

On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 01:29 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Martin Bligh wrote:
> >
> >> http://test.kernel.org/abat/49037/debug/test.log.0
> >>
> >> AS arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect.o
> >> LD arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect
> >> AS arch/x86_64/boot/setup.o
> >> LD arch/x86_64/boot/setup
> >> AS arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/head.o
> >> CC arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.o
> >> OBJCOPY arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin
> >> BFD: Warning: Writing section `.data.percpu' to huge (ie negative) file
> >> offset 0x804700c0.
> >> /usr/local/autobench/sources/x86_64-cross/gcc-3.4.0-glibc-2.3.2/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-objcopy:
> >> arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin: File truncated
> >> make[2]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin] Error 1
> >> make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux] Error 2
> >> make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
> >> 09/25/06-09:13:48 Build the kernel. Failed rc = 2
> >> 09/25/06-09:13:49 build: kernel build Failed rc = 1
> >>
> >> Wierd. Same box compiled 2.6.18 fine.
> >>
> >
> > Pretty sure this isn't a space problem, as we have just checked space
> > before the build and I've taken no action since then. Someone did
> > mention "tool chain issue" when it was first spotted. Will check with
> > them and see why they thought that.
> >
>
> Does this box have an older version of binutils (2.15?)? If so, it
> might be getting upset over the patch "note-section" in Andi's queue. I
> know it has been a bit problematic, but I don't know if the problems
> manifest in this way.

I've not seen it manifest like this but it would be worth trying Jan's
patch from
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2006-08/msg01416.html
to see if it helps.

Andi removed an identical patch (from someone else) from his queue due
to http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115629369729911&w=2 We
have had the patch in the Xen tree for a couple of weeks now with no
reported problems.

Ian.