From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15958 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2007 22:45:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 15638 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2007 22:45:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailout2-7.pacific.net.au (HELO mailout2.pacific.net.au) (61.8.2.230) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:45:34 +0000 Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au [61.8.2.162]) by mailout2.pacific.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F07BFA8F; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:45:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from eyo32.local (ppp56D0.dsl.pacific.net.au [125.255.22.208]) by mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FDE8C02; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:45:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from gws by eyo32.local with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IL58l-0001T9-2J; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:45:31 +1000 Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:45:00 -0000 From: Greg Schafer To: "H.J. Lu" , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GNU hash-style compatibility problem on x86_64 Message-ID: <20070814224531.GA5638@eyo32.local> References: <20070814072231.GA1370@eyo32.local> <20070814124747.GA22418@lucon.org> <20070814125638.GA11842@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070814125638.GA11842@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2007-08/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 08:56:38AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 05:47:47AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > > Well, it sounds like a bug in binutils 2.17. There are so many of them > > and they have been fixed in the current binutils. I don't want to spend > > time on it unless it is reproducible in the current binutils. > > But wasn't the point of --hash-style=both to be compatible with older > tools? Yes, that was my understanding too and the main reason for my report. Roland mentioned back-compat issues in this LKML posting: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/26/262 but admittedly he only touches on dynamic linkers, and of course he was talking in the context of kernel vDSO. > At a guess this has to do with the unrecognized shdr type. I can understand HJ's response in that there isn't much incentive to fix bugs in an old binutils release, but I was kind of hoping one of the experts here might be able to pinpoint the problem and produce a minimal patch. Regards Greg