X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <56D62004.9040101@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:04:36 +0100
From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101206 SUSE/3.1.7 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [winter-gcc AT bfw-online DOT de: DJGPP COFF relocation in absolute
 sections]
References: <201602291610 DOT u1TGAFau002330 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <201602291610.u1TGAFau002330@envy.delorie.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:FL8S7RT6NIX8eH3R+fDjzoKiOxbvUE2MiQgac68ghHsiq7Ede9+
 8vqRaK2yBOUdb1aXd4L10GJKk+a+TaVEn6Z9ZzjGuDn6qbSAqMdEvecqQN+URPaooDOweU8
 73TdAViwpR4zDlF8+VTW/VNv+WnfYlE5fHmlpuoi1IByEJxVJvtcHFf1mw3gFsTkkwlMdKs
 s+MHHU6UVjue3MqQ7Hcng==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:5zcsJuiNQpg=:/kiAjAT9rjGlXB5fntq+FW
 xBADdbH0PUV8H+lyNiKxYi9hSPqT+2oz6sbEIJvH/IBK/pWkC/ZkbO44AQI0H5B+abm2J4/Kp
 qXwWv7VmgGl06aYG0YTO6D3UhwbtdgbQ/vc1NWK+rpZUqUlFWUDghToLYECNnB+uudNH7uUQn
 mIVcVRj+Sj8nJH2UunSizps0OW3GIYljxzQ8sLVQDJjVF6wFa212mrrotFCQisVN9TSd4h2k3
 4dxemW/oxRubvXBrSuoytrmBYrX/P/JM0cHMz1pykYQbHE57vpFoGAFgBgw08Znj7m3SHF+VL
 YnoRu0Tlgf/NgYusFgEBzXAsIUytHsamqlbjxWFo5SugJdYmWwYgI7dnE6JN0DmpjflfuQrc3
 wX4+/1IFL4XteOwmg1O2VImogB9UegG3Ss9CBMp5dabgpBXflyzovzddcQBlOYysM6dL0uQqp
 5IT5lu8AAIgqzJ7xDz98IcJxPHHYP4pkptJkY+4y2N9HMFM0+7ZgPntYVQ9IQk8eY23NQBC/R
 ddpud4DEHqP+ldT1i4x0miBt9z4OWVWtyIL96gCAnM8tiRpl1p/7r858wzK6Eir+yETA5wkvH
 xAPHFRcJWIQe+uNxNcNll3zMImBNu/uPqi+L2Kb46pGOZU8gMpC6yM9Tb/4agEoTWcSCMhubq
 +OnWGtPY/oRhq1iZ2Lq3uDCuxXtTGNrYcDjFr6jME7CvX44hzRSIMy7O41GGsMz4TD39beBDZ
 1XkNd8uYFryiCuNXoFue27fqghfAhpz7s6CmLv7JyZLmW0j9K1/lVZAH2KkIHahEpl6edu9IA
 0KS9cj4
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Am 29.02.2016 17:10, schrieb DJ Delorie:
>
> Could someone please see if the bug reported below affects DJGPP at
> all?
>
> From:
> To: dj AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: DJGPP COFF relocation in absolute sections
>
> Hi DJ,
>
> since knowledge on your toolchain seems to be rare and activity on the mailing
> list rather low, I would like to ask you about the COFF variant DJGPP is using.
> Recently changes in binutils broke support for COFF for SCO which we are
> (unfortunately) using:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19623
>
> COFF SCO seems to dictate that symbols in absolute sections shall not be
> relocated, yet the patch in binutils suggest that DJGPP/COFF might expect that.
> Maybe binutils should (as initially suggested) conditionally switch behaviour
> for such symbols in such sections depending on the COFF target architecture.
> However I am really out of my depth on this topic and appreciate any insights.

No, the current DJGPP port of binutils 2.26 does not suffer from the bug reported
in:
   https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19623
and works flawlessly.  This imples that the produced binaries work _and_ they can
be debugged using gdb.  As I have reported in:
   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/2015-06/msg00010.html
the breakage was that the debug info in the produced binaries was corrupted but
the binaries itself did work.  The reason for the corruption could be identified
by me by the change introduced by the patch:
   https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2014-03/msg00270.html
I do not understand what excatly is the difference between DJGPP COFF and SCO COFF
and it really puzzles me that binutils 2.24 seemed to work for both ports but with
the changes introduced by binutils 2.25 the DJGPP port become broken meanwhile the
SCO port shall still work flawlessly.  This issue was satisfactorily fixed for the
DJGPP with the patch proposed in:
   https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2015-06/msg00111.html

In the end the question is does the DJGPP port also need that symbols in absolute
sections shall not be relocated or not?  Is DJGPP/COFF in this sense different to
SCO/COFF?  Probably this can only be answered by DJ.  If more help is needed please
contact me.


Regards,
Juan M. Guerrero