On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 12:52:57AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2010-12-03 10:58, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > >>>a.out: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, IA-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically > >>>linked, not stripped > ... > >>The branding on ia64 is wrong. The executable is not marked as being > >>a FreeBSD executable. It's declared as SYSV, whereas on amd64 it's > >>properly declared as FreeBSD. > >> > >>This is a binutils problem. > ... > >Anybody here can explain better what Marcel means > >by "binutils problem", and how to fix it? > > > >I've binutils-2.20.1_3 installed from devel/binutils. > > The problem is that our base binutils's BFD library has a custom hack to > 'brand' the produced executables, e.g. set the ELF_OSABI field in the > ELF header to ELFOSABI_FREEBSD. > > Other arches such as i386, amd64 (x86_64 in binutils land), sparc and > even alpha (!) have had patches sent upstream to do the right thing for > FreeBSD, but not ia64. > > If you can, please try the attached patch, which resolves the problem on > the ia64 machine I have tried it on. It should really be sent upstream > to the binutils people, if there is some interest. Could there be a problem in the patch?: % pwd /usr/src/contrib/binutils/bfd % patch < binutils-ia64-freebsd.diff Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff --git a/bfd/config.bfd b/bfd/config.bfd |index 9b719d8..d2fe23e 100644 |--- a/bfd/config.bfd |+++ b/bfd/config.bfd -------------------------- Patching file config.bfd using Plan A... Hunk #1 failed at 182. 1 out of 1 hunks failed--saving rejects to config.bfd.rej Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff --git a/bfd/configure b/bfd/configure |index 278cc1d..ad9dcc9 100755 |--- a/bfd/configure |+++ b/bfd/configure -------------------------- Patching file configure using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 6365 with fuzz 1 (offset -8804 lines). Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-ia64.c b/bfd/elfxx-ia64.c |index d42ad89..5625c44 100644 |--- a/bfd/elfxx-ia64.c |+++ b/bfd/elfxx-ia64.c -------------------------- Patching file elfxx-ia64.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 5013 (offset -1064 lines). Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff --git a/bfd/targets.c b/bfd/targets.c |index 3e99754..a642a8d 100644 |--- a/bfd/targets.c |+++ b/bfd/targets.c -------------------------- Patching file targets.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 595 with fuzz 1 (offset -102 lines). Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff --git a/ld/emulparams/elf64_ia64_fbsd.sh b/ld/emulparams/elf64_ia64_fbsd.sh |index ab7e78f..a7e2675 100644 |--- a/ld/emulparams/elf64_ia64_fbsd.sh |+++ b/ld/emulparams/elf64_ia64_fbsd.sh -------------------------- File to patch: ../ld/emulparams/elf64_ia64_fbsd.sh Patching file ../ld/emulparams/elf64_ia64_fbsd.sh using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 4 with fuzz 2. patch: **** misordered hunks! output would be garbled % many thanks for your help anton -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423Received on Mon Dec 06 2010 - 14:15:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:09 UTC