From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:39:12 -0800 Received: from mail.cosinecom.com ([63.88.104.16]:37895 "EHLO exchsrv1.cosinecom.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:38:55 -0800 Received: by exchsrv1.cosinecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:36:46 -0800 Message-ID: <7EB7C6B62C4FD41196A80090279A29113D7353@exchsrv1.cosinecom.com> From: John Van Horne To: "'linux-mips@oss.sgi.com'" Cc: "'wesolows@foobazco.org'" Subject: Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:36:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C075EE.CBD95CA0" Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C075EE.CBD95CA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello, I downloaded cross-all-001027.tar from oss.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/mips-linux/simple/crossdev, built it on my ix86 Linux box, and have tried to use it on our Linux application and Linux kernel. I'm getting errors which we didn't see when we were using binutils-mips-linux-2.8.1 and egcs-mips-linux-1.0.3a. First, while the kernel builds just fine, when we use objcopy to convert the elf image into a binary image which we can download to our target, objcopy fails with warnings saying that it is writing sections to huge (i.e. negative) file offsets. When I use objdump to analyze the kernel image, I see that our start address of 0x80102584 has been turned into 0xffffffff80102584. I'm thinking that I need to tell ld something to stop it from doing this. Any ideas? Second, the way we build our application, we first create a partially linked image, with the -r flag. Then we run ld on this (and an additional object file). When we do this with the tools from cross-all-001027 we get the following error on the second link step: mips-linux-ld: BFD internal error, aborting at /homes/local/mips-cross/crossdev-build/src/binutils-001027/bfd/elf32-mips.c line 6942 in _bfd_mips_elf_relocate_section mips-linux-ld: Please report this bug. Actually, on the application we didn't get this far using binutils-mips-linux-2.8.1 and egcs-mips-linux-1.0.3a, so I have nothing to compare it to. I'm not sure if this is a bug or if I should be passing some flags to gcc or ld. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks, -John ------_=_NextPart_001_01C075EE.CBD95CA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

I downloaded cross-all-001027.tar from = oss.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/mips-linux/simple/crossdev,
built it on my ix86 Linux box, and = have tried to use it on our Linux application and Linux kernel.
I'm getting errors which we didn't = see when we were using binutils-mips-linux-2.8.1 and
egcs-mips-linux-1.0.3a.

First, while the kernel builds just = fine, when we use objcopy to convert the elf image into a binary
image which we can download to our = target, objcopy fails with warnings saying that it is writing
sections to huge (i.e. negative) file = offsets. When I use objdump to analyze the kernel image,
I see that our start address of = 0x80102584 has been turned into 0xffffffff80102584. I'm thinking = that
I need to tell ld something to stop = it from doing this. Any ideas?

Second, the way we build our = application, we first create a partially linked image, with the -r = flag. Then
we run ld on this (and an additional = object file). When we do this with the tools from = cross-all-001027
we get the following error on the = second link step:

mips-linux-ld:  BFD internal = error, aborting at = /homes/local/mips-cross/crossdev-build/src/binutils-001027/bfd/elf32-mip= s.c line 6942 in _bfd_mips_elf_relocate_section

mips-linux-ld: Please report this = bug.

Actually, on the application we didn't = get this far using binutils-mips-linux-2.8.1 and = egcs-mips-linux-1.0.3a,
so I have nothing to compare it = to.  I'm not sure if this is a bug or if I should be passing some = flags to gcc or ld.

Any help you can provide would be = appreciated.

Thanks,
-John


------_=_NextPart_001_01C075EE.CBD95CA0--