From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5600 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2012 12:09:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 5586 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2012 12:09:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-tul01m020-f169.google.com (HELO mail-tul01m020-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:09:13 +0000 Received: by obbta7 with SMTP id ta7so6670467obb.0 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.89.7 with SMTP id bk7mr10044443obb.15.1328357352483; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from Deathwish.hagood ([74.221.200.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y4sm11101163obj.10.2012.02.04.04.09.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:09:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.0.66] (chumley.hagood [10.16.0.66]) by Deathwish.hagood (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D742C7B8044; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 06:09:09 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Weird error cross-compiling glibc with binutils 2.22 or head From: David Hagood To: Andreas Schwab Cc: binutils@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <34bc660d9f725c71ee7a72236bbdcd1f.squirrel@localhost> <1328313176.2972.16.camel@chumley> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1328357349.2972.20.camel@chumley> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 09:00 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > That's exactly what you have to find out. It is absolutely obvious that > this has nothing to do with binutils, because the erroneous line was > explicitly written into linker script. Except you seem to have missed the bit in my first post that this only started happening AFTER I replaced the older version of binutils I was cross-compiling with the newer version of binutils - that is, when I stopped building binutils-2.20 for the cross environment and started building binutils-2.22 for the cross environment. Now, I know that "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy, but to start checking the assumption that the thing I changed might have something to do with the change is not unreasonable. Look: if you don't want to help me, fine. Stop replying to my mails. But I am seeing this. I am not the only one seeing this. I am pursuing this on both the binutils board (because changing binutils seems to be what precipitated the change) and on the libc board.