Bug 180315
Summary: | /usr/bin/ld: BFD 2.16.1 assertion fail elf64-ppc.c:7973 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 | Reporter: | Bin Li <binli> |
Component: | binutils | Assignee: | Jakub Jelinek <jakub> |
Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 3.0 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | ppc64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-03-15 18:16:34 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Bin Li
2006-02-07 07:15:47 UTC
This problem is on RH3.0 PowerPC platform, and please provide an officially released newer version of binutils to replace the latest released 2.16.1 binutils. Upgrading RHEL3 binutils is not an option, such kind of disruptive change is not suitable for RHEL updates. If you want 2.16.1+ binutils, you need to build it yourself, or wait for RHEL5 which will have binutils based on at least 2.16.91. If you provide a self-contained testcase, we could look to see what's going on and why the stub branch overflows (that's the assert you mentioned) and if consider fixing it. In current CVS binutils that assert is replaced by a linker error, so if you aren't getting that error, it means some relaxation or different section layout led to this overflow not being triggered. But without a testcase there is nothing we can do with it. - To get the repro that leads to binutils is not straight forward and very time consuming. At this point, Sybase decide to go ahead with using the CVS version of binutils to get around the diagserver ld Ć¢assertion failureĆ¢. - In the meantime, we will continue to work on getting the repro for the linking error however with lower priority. - Sybase would like to understand if RH will continue support Sybase in case there is any customer reported problems possibly caused by RH software when the CVS version of binutils is used. What kind of support would Sybase get? I'd say if it is a problem clearly not related to the use of different binutils, then certainly normal support, otherwise I guess Red Hat and Sybase would need to cooperate in analysis until it is clear if the problem is on the Red Hat side or in the binutils used. Anyway, please reopen this bug when (if) you have a self-contained reproducer. Thanks. |