PR25585, PHDR segment not covered by LOAD segment

PR25585, PHDR segment not covered by LOAD segment

[Alan Modra]

I closed this bug as invalid, but I think it is worth mentioning in NEWS
that older linkers didn't check PT_PHDR very well.  The patch also allows
people to force an output file with --noinhibit-exec after the error.

bfd/
	PR 25585
	* elf.c (assign_file_positions_for_load_sections): Continue linking
	on "PHDR segment not covered by LOAD segment" errors.
ld/
	PR 25585
	* NEWS: Mention better "PHDR segment not covered by LOAD segment"
	checking.

diff --git a/bfd/elf.c b/bfd/elf.c
index 4342e84752..4a6d31a75e 100644
--- a/bfd/elf.c
+++ b/bfd/elf.c
@@ -5926,7 +5926,11 @@ assign_file_positions_for_load_sections (bfd *abfd,
 	  _bfd_error_handler (_("%pB: error: PHDR segment not covered"
 				" by LOAD segment"),
 			      abfd);
-	  return FALSE;
+	  if (link_info == NULL)
+	    return FALSE;
+	  /* Arrange for the linker to exit with an error, deleting
+	     the output file unless --noinhibit-exec is given.  */
+	  link_info->callbacks->info ("%X");
 	}
 
       /* Check that all sections are in a PT_LOAD segment.
diff --git a/ld/NEWS b/ld/NEWS
index f659ccfc06..7734d23d5b 100644
--- a/ld/NEWS
+++ b/ld/NEWS
@@ -2,6 +2,12 @@
 
 Changes in 2.34:
 
+* The ld check for "PHDR segment not covered by LOAD segment" is more
+  effective, catching cases that were wrongly allowed by previous versions of
+  ld.  If you see this error it is likely you are linking with a bad linker
+  script or the binary you are building is not intended to be loaded by a
+  dynamic loader.  In the latter case --no-dynamic-linker is appropriate.
+
 * cr16c support removed.
 
 * Add support for z80-elf.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM