From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 024623858CDB for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 08:57:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 024623858CDB Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1680166667; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+4fzqWKE+Mg+F93T9Q399TiN0JTI5hkd/F/K2YkVTb4=; b=eDviBhlLM1r5GU/Ipna+RtnpROGNCDz2sWisVUZxwH2KnJ/9K9Be0NNwNzrSHFvy+Nk+LX c/HwxmiB6dizwoMH3aYKI5oNMmEdT1zueewtZv84bT1GE9B0rEy+t1ducc631cGh54wdI1 F1rNPQm5CFdJRUUgo4tsIVDDpwmNa94= Received: from mail-qt1-f200.google.com (mail-qt1-f200.google.com [209.85.160.200]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-587-YbYsVAHkPaaqQgemd9R3LA-1; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 04:57:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: YbYsVAHkPaaqQgemd9R3LA-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f200.google.com with SMTP id w13-20020ac857cd000000b003e37d3e6de2so12002309qta.16 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 01:57:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680166665; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+4fzqWKE+Mg+F93T9Q399TiN0JTI5hkd/F/K2YkVTb4=; b=3NNVXppGAPnHAhZkgXuTu0+hZUCBlYXEQ7C6bLgPAOpmPuV39o+IdzsoN9PhQy8Yh7 A3ZBXm6qO85vYDHOI4cNmGBpPQj68KRwtsW/EngGSLs3vnUvGHDOvAjzr1xdGX2JCoWK rLaWPv/Wuo2XW3rGWhqErNnPonBpL/CS6BK7XezjzaAoYZnqo7GaSbBHEZgpbybdN2rF hqD3ZqMCsIhX6/kG9PS/1USuMFiU355acNfZff3CAqtxNGYAZqy2X8dCph4Hs2lfjYFc l6cndY3FVMoxeNuQHp194pjCR+PDKyfhjfTmKunkD56QOKHV7WImUodSHPQCZ7rUlRr2 dMIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cTXr+Y6+tF1xhK3oSc/PV8/MzUJnGsGkvCZasoNTJFr4wKmgbX NReJfGYa0qk4qtD9pB+6N22ORjf7TswQNJYhOazfqJoNchbIVauYpGvH38A88s6gHz3xWqtKct6 javO70mfQ1lyGyt7NJw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5983:0:b0:3e6:2d20:1737 with SMTP id e3-20020ac85983000000b003e62d201737mr6011025qte.54.1680166665708; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 01:57:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YdylL8TDSrlLpuiZ5xIKb0HgroPJqf45SajNT/Z5wh6Z1jaa2+UBqiZaG5gEF+zS1UT4uL4w== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5983:0:b0:3e6:2d20:1737 with SMTP id e3-20020ac85983000000b003e62d201737mr6011019qte.54.1680166665503; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 01:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] ([79.123.86.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q17-20020a05620a025100b00746b3eab0fdsm8699769qkn.44.2023.03.30.01.57.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2023 01:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 09:57:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 Subject: Re: RFC: Can static executables contain relocations against symbols ? To: Alan Modra Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, mjw@fedoraproject.org, amulhern@redhat.com References: <87v8ijmxjh.fsf@redhat.com> From: Nick Clifton In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Alan, >> Anyway, does the following fix the particular problem you are seeing? I am not sure - I will have to investigate. Reproducing the original problem is difficult because it involves using the Rust compiler on a non-x86_64 platform, so it may take me a while. > I'm going to commit the patch even if it doesn't fix your problem > since that 1995 comment from commit ede4eed48386 needs fixing, and > it's wrong to use a non-alloc symtab with an alloc reloc section as > others have commented. That is a good point. Thanks for creating a better patch. Cheers Nick