Compiling this simple program: int main (void) { return 0; } with: gcc -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--gc-sections main.c results in: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/8/../../../../lib64/crti.o(.gnu.build.attributes+0x14): error: relocation refers to local symbol "" [1], which is defined in a discarded section /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/8/../../../../lib64/crti.o(.gnu.build.attributes+0x1c): error: relocation refers to local symbol "" [1], which is defined in a discarded section /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/8/../../../../lib64/crtn.o(.gnu.build.attributes+0x14): error: relocation refers to local symbol "" [1], which is defined in a discarded section /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/8/../../../../lib64/crtn.o(.gnu.build.attributes+0x1c): error: relocation refers to local symbol "" [1], which is defined in a discarded section collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status I'm attaching the crti.o file for reference. Package versions: binutils-2.30.90-2.fc29.x86_64 gcc-8.1.1-4.fc29.1.x86_64 glibc-2.27.9000-38.fc29.x86_64
Created attachment 1458286 [details] crtn.o
Created attachment 1458287 [details] crti.o
I have added code to gold to skip warnings about unresolvable relocations in the .gnu.build.attributes section. It already code to do this for several other sections, so I did not feel too bad about making the change. Long term I need to discuss with the gold maintainers about the correct way to handle this situation. I suspect that it will turn into another case where section groups need to be used. Fixed in: binutils-2.30.90-3.fc29
Not sure if bug #1605019 was a duplicate.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 29 development cycle. Changing version to '29'.
If anyone else is interested in the patch from Nick Clifton from comment #3 it's NOT part of binutils repo located at https://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git looked at latest (at this time) commit 3822612df0694cc07597e534fa73b34aa2540812 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Date: Fri Apr 12 00:00:26 2019 +0000 But I found it inside https://download-ib01.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/testing/29/Everything/SRPMS/Packages/b/binutils-2.31.1-25.fc29.src.rpm with filename binutils-gold-ignore-discarded-note-relocs.patch I can't attach files, but its contents look like this: ```patch --- binutils.orig/gold/target-reloc.h 2018-07-12 11:37:24.894494658 +0100 +++ binutils-2.30.90/gold/target-reloc.h 2018-07-12 15:38:50.049083904 +0100 @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ class Default_comdat_behavior if (Layout::is_debug_info_section(name)) return CB_PRETEND; if (strcmp(name, ".eh_frame") == 0 + || strncmp(name, ".gnu.build.attributes", 21) == 0 // FIXME: We should really be checking the section type for ST_NOTE... || strcmp(name, ".gcc_except_table") == 0) return CB_IGNORE; return CB_ERROR; ``` Now I will to try to see if I can use this patch for this similar Rust issue* for section named `.stack_sizes` * https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/59652#issuecomment-482253086
Note that I didn't hit this issue (using Comment 0 reproduction steps, AND the below steps) admitedly with ArchLinux's(not RedHat's) binutils [2.31.1-4](https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/binutils&id=0de772f54ba7ac042b88d9db53ba1f586e89edce) and the unreleased-in-ArchLinux(yet) [2.32-1](https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/binutils&id=8e3f40011ddc933f016d6f126c3b3cb24e711c28) and they do not use the above patch, which means that the patch(in Comment 6) is no longer needed and that makes me wonder how else did the binutils devs fix this issue? or, maybe I'm missing something here, since I'm on a different OS! I used these to test: int main (void) { return 0; } gcc -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--gc-sections main.c -Wa,--generate-missing-build-notes=yes local/binutils 2.32-2 (base-devel builtbydaddy) A set of programs to assemble and manipulate binary and object files local/gcc 8.2.1+20181127-1 (base-devel) The GNU Compiler Collection - C and C++ frontends local/gcc-libs 8.2.1+20181127-1 (base) Runtime libraries shipped by GCC local/lib32-gcc-libs 8.2.1+20181127-1 (multilib-devel) 32-bit runtime libraries shipped by GCC local/glibc 2.29-1 (builtbydaddy base) GNU C Library local/lib32-glibc 2.29-1 (builtbydaddy) GNU C Library (32-bit)
This message is a reminder that Fedora 29 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 29 on 2019-11-26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '29'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 29 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 29 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-11-26. Fedora 29 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.