[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c
From: |
nickc at redhat dot com |
Subject: |
[Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807 |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Feb 2022 16:43:43 +0000 |
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28848
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> I need to think about this a bit. The object file is arguably buggy in that
> it says that it uses hw fp, but doesn't say which version. But if we report
> an error (or a warning) we probably should do that for all input objects,
> not just the first on the list.
Given that the value of 3 for Tag_ABI_HardFP_use is deprecated, that would
be reasonable.
> Also, if we agree the object is buggy, we should probably have code in the
> assembler to fault that when the object is created. We should also warn if
> a deprecated tag value is picked, though I'm a little worried that might
> cause problems with version skew when used with older GCC releases - but
> perhaps tsktsk is good enough.
Fair enough. The thing that worries me is that the problematic file - crti.o -
comes from glibc and is going to affect the building of a lot of projects. So
whilst glibc can be fixed, that will take some time, and in the meantime other
peoples projects are stuck. A solution which will allow builds to complete -
even if it means ignoring a warning message from the linker, is probably
preferable to triggering an assert.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
- [Bug ld/28848] New: [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, doko at debian dot org, 2022/02/01
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, doko at debian dot org, 2022/02/01
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, nickc at redhat dot com, 2022/02/02
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org, 2022/02/03
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, nickc at redhat dot com, 2022/02/10
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, nickc at redhat dot com, 2022/02/10
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org, 2022/02/10
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807,
nickc at redhat dot com <=
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org, 2022/02/10
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, doko at debian dot org, 2022/02/11
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, doko at debian dot org, 2022/02/11
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, plugwash at p10link dot net, 2022/02/17
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, hjl.tools at gmail dot com, 2022/02/18
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, sam at gentoo dot org, 2022/02/18
- [Bug ld/28848] [2.38 Regression] ld assertion fail ../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:14807, plugwash at p10link dot net, 2022/02/18