linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8

To: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8
From: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:00:38 -0500
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0403171829130.14525@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <404D0132.3020202@gentoo.org> <20040308234450.GF16163@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <404D0A18.6050802@gentoo.org> <20040309003447.GH16163@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <404D1909.1020005@gentoo.org> <20040309013841.GI16163@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <404D28B1.4010608@gentoo.org> <20040309023737.GJ16163@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0403171829130.14525@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Reply-to: kumba@gentoo.org
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

 It looks like a bug somewhere in binutils, probably BFD.  The segment's
start address should be rounded up to 0x8010000, not down to 0x8000000.

Well, I did test removing the patch Thiemo mentioned (http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-12/msg00380.html), and rebuilding a kernel, and now they boot. I tested a 2.4.25 on an Indy, and 2.6.4 on an O2. Perhaps a bug in this specific patch?


--Kumba

--
"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>