| 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 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8, Maciej W. Rozycki |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |