[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bug binutils/5059] New: absolute objcopy not working on amd64?
From: |
happyarch at gmail dot com |
Subject: |
[Bug binutils/5059] New: absolute objcopy not working on amd64? |
Date: |
23 Sep 2007 23:11:48 -0000 |
grub-0.97 with 64 bit gcc toolchain(gcc-4.2.1, binutils-2.18, glibc-2.6.1)
$ grub-0.97> ./configure --prefix=/usr
...
checking whether objcopy works for absolute addresses... no
configure: error: GRUB requires a working absolute objcopy; upgrade your
binutils
...
$ echo $CC
$ _
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bug is originally reported by Kurt Roeckx <address@hidden>
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=244498
"When grub's configure script runs it looks to the output of
objcopy -O binary and complains that 2 files linked with an other
address results in a different file. It seems that on amd64 this
isn't working properly.
When running configure it says:
configure: error: GRUB requires a working absolute objcopy;
upgrade your binutils
in acinclude.m4:
dnl Some versions of `objcopy -O binary' vary their output depending
dnl on the link address.
....
Running the test program mannually, once linked at 2000 once at
8000 shows this difference (hexdump of the binary file):
0000000 4855 e589 04c7 0025 0010 0200 0000 c900
0000010 00c3 0000 0000 0000 0014 0000 0000 0000
0000020 0001 7801 0c10 0807 0190 0000 0000 0000
-0000030 001c 0000 001c 0000 2000 0000 0000 0000
+0000030 001c 0000 001c 0000 8000 0000 0000 0000
0000040 0011 0000 0000 0000 0e41 8610 4302 060d
0000050
It shows the difference are the addresses linked at.
Kurt"
--
Summary: absolute objcopy not working on amd64?
Product: binutils
Version: 2.18
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: happyarch at gmail dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5059
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
- [Bug binutils/5059] New: absolute objcopy not working on amd64?,
happyarch at gmail dot com <=
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, hjl at lucon dot org, 2007/09/23
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, amodra at bigpond dot net dot au, 2007/09/23
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, happyarch at gmail dot com, 2007/09/23
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, amodra at bigpond dot net dot au, 2007/09/23
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, happyarch at gmail dot com, 2007/09/24
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, hjl at lucon dot org, 2007/09/24
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, hjl at lucon dot org, 2007/09/24
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, hjl at lucon dot org, 2007/09/24
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, happyarch at gmail dot com, 2007/09/24
- [Bug binutils/5059] absolute objcopy not working on amd64?, hjl at lucon dot org, 2007/09/25