[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1470768325.3551.45.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 14:45:25 -0400
From: Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Aurelien Jacquiot <a-jacquiot@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: c6x linker issue on linux-next-20160808 + some linker table work
On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:40 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 01:04:00PM -0400, Mark Salter wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 06:37 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >
> > > On 08/09/2016 01:11 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mark, Aurelien,
> > > >
> > > > I've run into a linker (ld) issue caused by the linker table work I've
> > > > been working on [0]. I looked into this and for the life of me, I
> > > > cannot comprehend what the problem is, so was hoping you folks might
> > > > be able to chime in.
> > > >
> > > For reference, the error is
> > >
> > > c6x-elf-ld: drivers/built-in.o: SB-relative relocation but __c6xabi_DSBT_BASE not defined
> > > c6x-elf-ld: drivers/built-in.o: SB-relative relocation but __c6xabi_DSBT_BASE not defined
> > DSBT is a reference to the no-MMU userspace ABI used by c6x. The kernel shouldn't
> > be referencing DSBT base. The -mno-dsbt gcc flag should prevent it.
> I see -mno-dsbt on arch/c6x/Makefile already -- however at link time this is
> an issue if linker tables are used it seems. Do you have any other recommendation?
>
I'm looking at it now...
> I will note that it would seem that even i386 and x86-64 compiler/binutils seem
> to have relocation issues on older compiler/binutils, for instance:
>
> gcc-4.7.2
> binutils-2.22
>
> Yields:
>
> x86_64:allyesconfig || x86_64:allmodconfig
> Invalid absolute R_X86_64_64 relocation: __per_cpu_load
>
> i386:defconfig
> Invalid absolute R_386_32 relocation: __vvar_page
>
> This issue on x86 is not observed as so far as of gcc 5.2.1
> and binutils-2.26.1.
>
> hpa -- if you can think of a work around for this for older compilers/linkers
> let me know... unless we are OK to increase the requirements for x86.
>
> Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists