Re: Processed: Re: Bug#624354: ./xpcshell: error while loading shared libraries: ./libxul.so: R_PPC_REL24 relocation at 0x0f9f0148 for symbol `_restgpr_29_x' out of range
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 11:25 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Don, 2011-04-28 at 10:45 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:06:01AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > > > On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > > > >Take the build log, remove all lines without -fPIC, you'll only get
> > > > > > >lines for building binaries and objects that aren't linked into
> > > > > > >libxul.so. QED.
> > No possibility of e.g. a static library being linked into a shared
> > object?
> None from the iceweasel source, at least.
I think so far the most likely origin of the R_PPC_REL24 relocations
seems libgcc.a. Matthias, do you concur? If so, any ideas what the
iceweasel build might be doing wrong? Or otherwise, any ideas for
isolating where they're coming from?
> > > > I'll also add that the symbol for which the relocation is failing,
> > > > _restgpr_29_x, comes from gcc, in gcc/config/rs6000/crtresxgpr.asm.
> > > > But you're right, it's most probably not a toolchain problem.
> > >
> > > Even better, if I download xulrunner-1.9.1_22.214.171.124-1_powerpc.deb and
> > > take a look at the relocations in libxul.so, I can't even find the
> > > relocation ld.so is complaining about.
> > How did you look?
> > daenzer@thor|11:11:06> objdump -R /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so|grep R_PPC_REL24
> > 0033faa0 R_PPC_REL24 _restgpr_29_x
> > 0033fdc0 R_PPC_REL24 _restgpr_29_x
> > 0033fea0 R_PPC_REL24 _restgpr_29_x
> > [...]
> > 47132 hits.
> And none of the offsets match the end of the relocation address ld.so is
> talking about.
Not sure that matters at all. A R_PPC_REL24 relocation in a shared
object is a bug.
P.S. /usr/lib/xulrunner-2.0/libxul.so seems contaminated as well.
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer