1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
[[!meta title="ELFOSABI_HURD"]]
[[!tag open_issue_binutils open_issue_glibc]]
# [[!debbug 630180]]
# [[open_issues/binutils]] commit 51b2f560ad035dffad3371093f8e5c80608d196c
Usage of `ELFOSABI_LINUX`/`STB_GNU_UNIQUE`. Has also been wrong before already
with respect to `STT_GNU_IFUNC`?
# IRC
IRC, freenode, #debian-hurd, 2011-06-11
<pinotree> youpi: not that there would be any hope in that, but id you try
asking doko about the gcc miscompiling (wrong elf format) issue?
<youpi> I didn't
<youpi> I'm still investigating
<youpi> maybe it's a binutils change actually
<pinotree> youpi: hm, are you sure it could be binutils? after all, even
some .o files are produced with format gnu/linux, so there's no binutils
involved up to that point of thecompilation yet?
<youpi> as is
<youpi> "as", I mean
<pinotree> i see
<youpi> since it's so unclear, I really prefer to investigate before
bothering doko
<pinotree> youpi: maybe i could be wrong,
<pinotree> in binutils, bfd/elf.c, around lines 9580
<youpi> the faulty thing seems to be gnu_unique_object in the source .s
file produced by g++
<pinotree> that's what that comment (which changed wrt binutils from eg
march) says
<youpi> seems to concur with my comment above :)
<pinotree> http://paste.debian.net/119542/ ¡û extract of diff
<youpi> ok, that really seems the culprit
<youpi> starting reportbug
<pinotree> who's the fault then?
<youpi> binutils
<youpi> it shouldn't hardcode LINUX
<pinotree> g++ emitting those symbols, or binutil considering them "linux"?
<youpi> it's a GNU thing, not a Linux thing
<pinotree> ah ok
<youpi> it's the same dynamic linker actually
<pinotree> youpi: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10549
<pinotree> see the reporter :)
<youpi> heh
<pinotree> youpi: see also gas/config/obj-elf.c:1725
<pinotree> (another change related to that bug, it seems)
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-06-15
<jkoenig> also I still get an "ELF file OS ABI invalid" error with binutils
2.21.52.20110606-2+hurd.1, is that expected?
<youpi> tschwinge: oops, the OS ABI invalid is actually due to the file
being marked GNU/Hurd
<youpi> I guess the linker is simply not aware that it should accept
GNU/Hurd
<tschwinge> youpi: So we got to work on glibc'S ld.so to teach it aboput
the Hurd OS ABI? (Or probably simply make that equivalent to the Linux
one?)
<youpi> probably simply an equivalent
<youpi> ELFOSABI_HURD is missing from elf/elf.h, for a start...
<youpi> linux' glibc has tests in lsdodefs.h
<youpi> the VALID_ELF_OSABI macro
<youpi> it's thus apparently a matter of providing an ldsodefs.h file with
VALID_ELF_HEADER, VALID_ELF_OSABI and VALID_ELF_ABIVERSION definitions
<youpi> (and include_next the generic one)
<youpi> I've prepared a patch for ldsodefs.h, I'll test it
|
