Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 09:58:54AM -0700, Brady Brown wrote: > > > > > I have run into the earlier mentioned problem of objcopy not correctly > > > > dealing with the sign extended 64 bit address generated by the new > > > > tools. Is there an update on this issue? Any good work-arounds or short > > > > time solutions? > > > > > > I don't have your old report at hand but somewhen during the past year > > > binutils received a number of fixes related to signed/unsigned addresses, > > > so you should try a recent copy of binutils. > > > > I'm currently using binutils-2.10.91-2 from Maciej's site. Is there a later > > rev that I should look at? > > I was believing that that one is good; can you resend your bugreport > about the sign extension problem? Thanks. > > Ralf Problem solved. Sorry, my oversight. The binutils are correctly handling the addresses. What happened was that the new tools created a couple of new code sections "__ex_table and __dbe_table" that were not handled by the linker script in my kernel (2.4.0-test9), hence ended up a strange low addresses. I interpreted the warnings and the 'wrong' address in the final srec as a address translation problem. Once I added these sections to the linker script the warnings and 'bad' address's went away. A second issue: The kernel built by these new tools will not boot. Complains about illegal instructions as soon as init is launched. The first address that traps is a sw inside the __bzero routine. I'll have to dig a bit here I guess. Any leads would be appreciated. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brady Brown (bbrown@ti.com) Work:(801)619-6103 Texas Instruments: Broadband Access Group ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
