emerge binutils (binutils-2.14.90.0.7-r4) fails on applying binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch. When I temporary disabled this patch in .ebuild file, following patch (binutils-2.14.90.0.4-sparc-nonpic.patch) failed too. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. emerge sys-devel/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-r4 Actual Results: Calculating dependencies ...done! >>> emerge (1 of 1) sys-devel/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-r4 to / >>> md5 src_uri ;-) binutils-2.14.90.0.7.tar.bz2 >>> Unpacking source... >>> Unpacking binutils-2.14.90.0.7.tar.bz2 to /var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.14.90 0.7-r4/work * Applying binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch... * Failed Patch: binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch! * * Include in your bugreport the contents of: * * /var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-r4/temp/binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc2 .patch-10706.out !!! ERROR: sys-devel/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-r4 failed. !!! Function epatch, Line 322, Exitcode 0 !!! Failed Patch: binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch! Expected Results: upgarde binutils to 2.14.90.0.7-r4 binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch-10494.out: ***** binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch ***** =============================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p0 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.13/binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch =============================================== patching file binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/emulparams/elf_i386_glibc21.sh can't find file to patch at input line 17 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/configure.tgt.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/configure.tgt 2002-11-15 15:14:38.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored can't find file to patch at input line 28 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.am.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.am 2002-11-15 15:12:42.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored can't find file to patch at input line 48 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.in.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.in 2002-11-15 15:12:42.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored =============================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p1 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.13/binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch =============================================== patching file ld/emulparams/elf_i386_glibc21.sh patching file ld/configure.tgt Hunk #1 succeeded at 154 (offset 7 lines). patching file ld/Makefile.am Hunk #1 succeeded at 183 (offset -2 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 800 (offset 65 lines). patch: **** write error : No space left on device =============================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p2 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.13/binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch =============================================== patching file emulparams/elf_i386_glibc21.sh can't find file to patch at input line 17 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/configure.tgt.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/configure.tgt 2002-11-15 15:14:38.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored can't find file to patch at input line 28 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.am.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.am 2002-11-15 15:12:42.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored patching file Makefile.in Hunk #1 FAILED at 295. Hunk #2 FAILED at 1458. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file Makefile.in.rej =============================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p3 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.13/binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch =============================================== patching file elf_i386_glibc21.sh missing header for unified diff at line 17 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 17 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/configure.tgt.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/configure.tgt 2002-11-15 15:14:38.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 28 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 28 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.am.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.am 2002-11-15 15:12:42.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 48 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 48 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.in.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.in 2002-11-15 15:12:42.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored =============================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p4 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.13/binutils-2.13.90.0.10-glibc21.patch =============================================== missing header for unified diff at line 3 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 3 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/emulparams/elf_i386_glibc21.sh.glibc21 2002-11-15 15:12:42.000000000 +0100 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/emulparams/elf_i386_glibc21.sh 2002-11-15 15:12:42.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 17 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 17 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/configure.tgt.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/configure.tgt 2002-11-15 15:14:38.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 28 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 28 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.am.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.am 2002-11-15 15:12:42.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 48 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 48 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.in.glibc21 2002-10-10 06:09:41.000000000 +0200 |+++ binutils-2.13.90.0.10/ld/Makefile.in 2002-11-15 15:12:42.000000000 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored emerge info Portage 2.0.49-r21 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r3, 2.4.20-xfs-r3) ================================================================= System uname: 2.4.20-xfs-r3 i686 Pentium III (Coppermine) Gentoo Base System version 1.4.3.10 ACACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86" AUTOCLEAN="yes" CFLAGS="-march=pentium3 -O3 -pipe" CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" COMPILER="gcc3" CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc /opt/tomcat/conf /usr/kde/2/share/config /usr/kde/3/share/config /usr/share/config /var/qmail/control" CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/gconf /etc/env.d" CXXFLAGS="-march=pentium3 -O2 -pipe" DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles" FEATURES="autoaddcvs ccache sandbox" GENTOO_MIRRORS="http://194.83.57.7/sites/www.ibiblio.org/gentoo/ http://gentoo.oregonstate.edu http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/gentoo" MAKEOPTS="-j2" PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages" PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/var/tmp" PORTDIR="/usr/portage" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="/usr/local/portage" SYNC="rsync://rsync.europe.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage" USE="acl berkdb crypt cups curl doc foomaticdb gdbm gif gtk2 imap java jpeg ldap libg++ libwww mad maildir mcal memlimit mpeg ncurses nls pam pdflib perl png python readline samba sasl slang spell ssl svga tcpd unicode x86 xml2 zlib"
Some problems with free space on device (but 3.3G free) on my computer. Looks like some hw problem.
I'm experiencing a similar bug during installation from LiveCD: ---------------------------- emerge (34 of 86) sys-devel/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-r4 to / Failed Patch: binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment.patch! Include in your bugreport the contents of: /var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-r4/temp/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment-patch-15964.out ERROR: sys-devel/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-r4 failed. Function epatch, Line 322, Exitcode 0 Failed Patch: binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment.patch ---------------------------- From binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment-patch-15964.out: ***** binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment.patch ***** =============================================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p0 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.14/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment.patch =============================================================== patching file bfd/bfd-in.h patching file bfd/elf-bfd.h patching file bfd/elf.c patching file bfd/elflink.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 2530 (offset 11 lines). patching file bfd/elflink.h patching file bfd/elf32-i386.c patching file bfd/elf32-s390.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 2214 (offset -2 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 2228 (offset -2 lines). patching file bfd/elf32-sh.c patching file bfd/elf32-sparc.c patching file bfd/elf64-s390.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 2184 (offset -2 lines). patch: **** malformed patch at line 484: Ix86-64.c =============================================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p1 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.14/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment.patch =============================================================== can't find file to patch at input line 76 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au> |To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com |Subject: tls section alignment | |This testcase fails to return the expected status on powerpc-linux, |depending on optimization level (really on where .tdata starts, but that |often changes depending on optimization). | |__thread int a = 10; |__thread int b __attribute__ ((aligned (8))); | |int main (void) |{ | return a; |} | |What's happening is that the TLS segment, made up of .tdata and .tbss, |ends up with p_vaddr not a multiple of p_align. Under these |circumstances glibc rounds down the TLS segment start address, which |affects targets that set their thread pointer from the start of a TLS |block. In the powerpc-linux testcase, we end up accessing *(&a-1). | |I started off fixing this just for powerpc and powerpc64, then decided |to teach ld how to ensure that the TLS segment p_vaddr is aligned. | |bfd/ChangeLog | * bfd-in.h (_bfd_elf_tls_setup): Declare. | * bfd-in2.h: Regenerate. | * elf-bfd.h (struct elf_link_tls_segment): Delete. | (struct elf_link_hash_table): Add tls_sec and tls_size. | * elf.c (_bfd_elf_link_hash_table_init): Init tls_sec and tls_size. | * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_tls_setup): New function. | * elflink.h (struct elf_final_link_info): Remove first_tls_sec. | (elf_bfd_final_link): Don't set first_tls_sec here. Update code | saving tls segment info, round segment size up. | (elf_link_output_extsym): Adjust code using tls segment info. | (elf_link_input_bfd): Likewise. | * elf32-i386.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-s390.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-sh.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-sparc.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf64-s390.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf64-x86-64.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elfxx-ia64.c (elfNN_ia64_tprel_base): Likewise. | (elfNN_ia64_dtprel_base): Likewise. | * elf64-alpha.c (alpha_get_dtprel_base): Likewise. | (alpha_get_tprel_base): Likewise. | (struct alpha_relax_info): Remove tls_segment. | (elf64_alpha_relax_got_load): Adjust invocation of | alpha_get_dtprel_base and alpha_get_tprel_base. | (elf64_alpha_relax_tls_get_addr): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relax_section): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relocate_section): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relax_find_tls_segment): Delete. | * elf32-ppc.c (struct ppc_elf_link_hash_table): Remove tls_sec. | (ppc_elf_tls_setup): Call _bfd_elf_tls_setup. Return section. | (ppc_elf_relocate_section): Adjust to use elf.tls_sec. | * elf32-ppc.h (ppc_elf_tls_setup): Update. | * elf64-ppc.c (struct ppc_link_hash_table): Remove tls_sec. | (ppc64_elf_tls_setup): Call _bfd_elf_tls_setup. Return section. | (ppc64_elf_tls_optimize): Adjust to use elf.tls_sec. | (ppc64_elf_relocate_section): Likewise. | * elf64-ppc.h (ppc64_elf_tls_setup): Update. | |ld/ChangeLog | * emultempl/elf32.em (gld${EMULATION_NAME}_before_allocation): Call | _bfd_elf_tls_setup. | |Index: bfd/bfd-in.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/bfd-in.h,v |retrieving revision 1.68 |diff -u -p -r1.68 bfd-in.h |--- bfd/bfd-in.h 31 Oct 2003 05:32:45 -0000 1.68 |+++ bfd/bfd-in.h 4 Nov 2003 05:33:50 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored can't find file to patch at input line 93 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf-bfd.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf-bfd.h,v |retrieving revision 1.116 |diff -u -p -r1.116 elf-bfd.h |--- bfd/elf-bfd.h 3 Nov 2003 15:17:38 -0000 1.116 |+++ bfd/elf-bfd.h 4 Nov 2003 05:33:53 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored can't find file to patch at input line 127 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v |retrieving revision 1.205 |diff -u -p -r1.205 elf.c |--- bfd/elf.c 31 Oct 2003 05:32:45 -0000 1.205 |+++ bfd/elf.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:00 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored can't find file to patch at input line 144 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elflink.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elflink.c,v |retrieving revision 1.48 |diff -u -p -r1.48 elflink.c |--- bfd/elflink.c 30 Oct 2003 14:13:50 -0000 1.48 |+++ bfd/elflink.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:00 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored can't find file to patch at input line 183 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elflink.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elflink.h,v |retrieving revision 1.245 |diff -u -p -r1.245 elflink.h |--- bfd/elflink.h 24 Oct 2003 14:55:14 -0000 1.245 |+++ bfd/elflink.h 4 Nov 2003 05:34:02 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 6 out of 6 hunks ignored can't find file to patch at input line 295 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-i386.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-i386.c,v |retrieving revision 1.112 |diff -u -p -r1.112 elf32-i386.c |--- bfd/elf32-i386.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:38 -0000 1.112 |+++ bfd/elf32-i386.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:04 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored can't find file to patch at input line 335 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-s390.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-s390.c,v |retrieving revision 1.49 |diff -u -p -r1.49 elf32-s390.c |--- bfd/elf32-s390.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.49 |+++ bfd/elf32-s390.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:06 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored can't find file to patch at input line 375 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-sh.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-sh.c,v |retrieving revision 1.95 |diff -u -p -r1.95 elf32-sh.c |--- bfd/elf32-sh.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.95 |+++ bfd/elf32-sh.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:10 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored can't find file to patch at input line 412 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-sparc.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-sparc.c,v |retrieving revision 1.57 |diff -u -p -r1.57 elf32-sparc.c |--- bfd/elf32-sparc.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.57 |+++ bfd/elf32-sparc.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:11 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored can't find file to patch at input line 452 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf64-s390.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf64-s390.c,v |retrieving revision 1.50 |diff -u -p -r1.50 elf64-s390.c |--- bfd/elf64-s390.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.50 |+++ bfd/elf64-s390.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:13 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. patch: **** malformed patch at line 484: Ix86-64.c =============================================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p2 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.14/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment.patch =============================================================== missing header for unified diff at line 76 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 76 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au> |To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com |Subject: tls section alignment | |This testcase fails to return the expected status on powerpc-linux, |depending on optimization level (really on where .tdata starts, but that |often changes depending on optimization). | |__thread int a = 10; |__thread int b __attribute__ ((aligned (8))); | |int main (void) |{ | return a; |} | |What's happening is that the TLS segment, made up of .tdata and .tbss, |ends up with p_vaddr not a multiple of p_align. Under these |circumstances glibc rounds down the TLS segment start address, which |affects targets that set their thread pointer from the start of a TLS |block. In the powerpc-linux testcase, we end up accessing *(&a-1). | |I started off fixing this just for powerpc and powerpc64, then decided |to teach ld how to ensure that the TLS segment p_vaddr is aligned. | |bfd/ChangeLog | * bfd-in.h (_bfd_elf_tls_setup): Declare. | * bfd-in2.h: Regenerate. | * elf-bfd.h (struct elf_link_tls_segment): Delete. | (struct elf_link_hash_table): Add tls_sec and tls_size. | * elf.c (_bfd_elf_link_hash_table_init): Init tls_sec and tls_size. | * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_tls_setup): New function. | * elflink.h (struct elf_final_link_info): Remove first_tls_sec. | (elf_bfd_final_link): Don't set first_tls_sec here. Update code | saving tls segment info, round segment size up. | (elf_link_output_extsym): Adjust code using tls segment info. | (elf_link_input_bfd): Likewise. | * elf32-i386.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-s390.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-sh.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-sparc.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf64-s390.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf64-x86-64.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elfxx-ia64.c (elfNN_ia64_tprel_base): Likewise. | (elfNN_ia64_dtprel_base): Likewise. | * elf64-alpha.c (alpha_get_dtprel_base): Likewise. | (alpha_get_tprel_base): Likewise. | (struct alpha_relax_info): Remove tls_segment. | (elf64_alpha_relax_got_load): Adjust invocation of | alpha_get_dtprel_base and alpha_get_tprel_base. | (elf64_alpha_relax_tls_get_addr): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relax_section): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relocate_section): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relax_find_tls_segment): Delete. | * elf32-ppc.c (struct ppc_elf_link_hash_table): Remove tls_sec. | (ppc_elf_tls_setup): Call _bfd_elf_tls_setup. Return section. | (ppc_elf_relocate_section): Adjust to use elf.tls_sec. | * elf32-ppc.h (ppc_elf_tls_setup): Update. | * elf64-ppc.c (struct ppc_link_hash_table): Remove tls_sec. | (ppc64_elf_tls_setup): Call _bfd_elf_tls_setup. Return section. | (ppc64_elf_tls_optimize): Adjust to use elf.tls_sec. | (ppc64_elf_relocate_section): Likewise. | * elf64-ppc.h (ppc64_elf_tls_setup): Update. | |ld/ChangeLog | * emultempl/elf32.em (gld${EMULATION_NAME}_before_allocation): Call | _bfd_elf_tls_setup. | |Index: bfd/bfd-in.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/bfd-in.h,v |retrieving revision 1.68 |diff -u -p -r1.68 bfd-in.h |--- bfd/bfd-in.h 31 Oct 2003 05:32:45 -0000 1.68 |+++ bfd/bfd-in.h 4 Nov 2003 05:33:50 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 93 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 93 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf-bfd.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf-bfd.h,v |retrieving revision 1.116 |diff -u -p -r1.116 elf-bfd.h |--- bfd/elf-bfd.h 3 Nov 2003 15:17:38 -0000 1.116 |+++ bfd/elf-bfd.h 4 Nov 2003 05:33:53 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 127 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 127 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v |retrieving revision 1.205 |diff -u -p -r1.205 elf.c |--- bfd/elf.c 31 Oct 2003 05:32:45 -0000 1.205 |+++ bfd/elf.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:00 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 144 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 144 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elflink.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elflink.c,v |retrieving revision 1.48 |diff -u -p -r1.48 elflink.c |--- bfd/elflink.c 30 Oct 2003 14:13:50 -0000 1.48 |+++ bfd/elflink.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:00 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 183 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 183 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elflink.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elflink.h,v |retrieving revision 1.245 |diff -u -p -r1.245 elflink.h |--- bfd/elflink.h 24 Oct 2003 14:55:14 -0000 1.245 |+++ bfd/elflink.h 4 Nov 2003 05:34:02 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 6 out of 6 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 295 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 295 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-i386.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-i386.c,v |retrieving revision 1.112 |diff -u -p -r1.112 elf32-i386.c |--- bfd/elf32-i386.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:38 -0000 1.112 |+++ bfd/elf32-i386.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:04 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 335 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 335 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-s390.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-s390.c,v |retrieving revision 1.49 |diff -u -p -r1.49 elf32-s390.c |--- bfd/elf32-s390.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.49 |+++ bfd/elf32-s390.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:06 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 375 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 375 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-sh.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-sh.c,v |retrieving revision 1.95 |diff -u -p -r1.95 elf32-sh.c |--- bfd/elf32-sh.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.95 |+++ bfd/elf32-sh.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:10 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 412 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 412 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-sparc.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-sparc.c,v |retrieving revision 1.57 |diff -u -p -r1.57 elf32-sparc.c |--- bfd/elf32-sparc.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.57 |+++ bfd/elf32-sparc.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:11 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 452 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 452 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf64-s390.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf64-s390.c,v |retrieving revision 1.50 |diff -u -p -r1.50 elf64-s390.c |--- bfd/elf64-s390.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.50 |+++ bfd/elf64-s390.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:13 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. patch: **** malformed patch at line 484: Ix86-64.c =============================================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p3 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.14/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment.patch =============================================================== missing header for unified diff at line 76 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 76 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au> |To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com |Subject: tls section alignment | |This testcase fails to return the expected status on powerpc-linux, |depending on optimization level (really on where .tdata starts, but that |often changes depending on optimization). | |__thread int a = 10; |__thread int b __attribute__ ((aligned (8))); | |int main (void) |{ | return a; |} | |What's happening is that the TLS segment, made up of .tdata and .tbss, |ends up with p_vaddr not a multiple of p_align. Under these |circumstances glibc rounds down the TLS segment start address, which |affects targets that set their thread pointer from the start of a TLS |block. In the powerpc-linux testcase, we end up accessing *(&a-1). | |I started off fixing this just for powerpc and powerpc64, then decided |to teach ld how to ensure that the TLS segment p_vaddr is aligned. | |bfd/ChangeLog | * bfd-in.h (_bfd_elf_tls_setup): Declare. | * bfd-in2.h: Regenerate. | * elf-bfd.h (struct elf_link_tls_segment): Delete. | (struct elf_link_hash_table): Add tls_sec and tls_size. | * elf.c (_bfd_elf_link_hash_table_init): Init tls_sec and tls_size. | * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_tls_setup): New function. | * elflink.h (struct elf_final_link_info): Remove first_tls_sec. | (elf_bfd_final_link): Don't set first_tls_sec here. Update code | saving tls segment info, round segment size up. | (elf_link_output_extsym): Adjust code using tls segment info. | (elf_link_input_bfd): Likewise. | * elf32-i386.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-s390.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-sh.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-sparc.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf64-s390.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf64-x86-64.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elfxx-ia64.c (elfNN_ia64_tprel_base): Likewise. | (elfNN_ia64_dtprel_base): Likewise. | * elf64-alpha.c (alpha_get_dtprel_base): Likewise. | (alpha_get_tprel_base): Likewise. | (struct alpha_relax_info): Remove tls_segment. | (elf64_alpha_relax_got_load): Adjust invocation of | alpha_get_dtprel_base and alpha_get_tprel_base. | (elf64_alpha_relax_tls_get_addr): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relax_section): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relocate_section): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relax_find_tls_segment): Delete. | * elf32-ppc.c (struct ppc_elf_link_hash_table): Remove tls_sec. | (ppc_elf_tls_setup): Call _bfd_elf_tls_setup. Return section. | (ppc_elf_relocate_section): Adjust to use elf.tls_sec. | * elf32-ppc.h (ppc_elf_tls_setup): Update. | * elf64-ppc.c (struct ppc_link_hash_table): Remove tls_sec. | (ppc64_elf_tls_setup): Call _bfd_elf_tls_setup. Return section. | (ppc64_elf_tls_optimize): Adjust to use elf.tls_sec. | (ppc64_elf_relocate_section): Likewise. | * elf64-ppc.h (ppc64_elf_tls_setup): Update. | |ld/ChangeLog | * emultempl/elf32.em (gld${EMULATION_NAME}_before_allocation): Call | _bfd_elf_tls_setup. | |Index: bfd/bfd-in.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/bfd-in.h,v |retrieving revision 1.68 |diff -u -p -r1.68 bfd-in.h |--- bfd/bfd-in.h 31 Oct 2003 05:32:45 -0000 1.68 |+++ bfd/bfd-in.h 4 Nov 2003 05:33:50 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 93 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 93 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf-bfd.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf-bfd.h,v |retrieving revision 1.116 |diff -u -p -r1.116 elf-bfd.h |--- bfd/elf-bfd.h 3 Nov 2003 15:17:38 -0000 1.116 |+++ bfd/elf-bfd.h 4 Nov 2003 05:33:53 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 127 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 127 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v |retrieving revision 1.205 |diff -u -p -r1.205 elf.c |--- bfd/elf.c 31 Oct 2003 05:32:45 -0000 1.205 |+++ bfd/elf.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:00 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 144 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 144 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elflink.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elflink.c,v |retrieving revision 1.48 |diff -u -p -r1.48 elflink.c |--- bfd/elflink.c 30 Oct 2003 14:13:50 -0000 1.48 |+++ bfd/elflink.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:00 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 183 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 183 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elflink.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elflink.h,v |retrieving revision 1.245 |diff -u -p -r1.245 elflink.h |--- bfd/elflink.h 24 Oct 2003 14:55:14 -0000 1.245 |+++ bfd/elflink.h 4 Nov 2003 05:34:02 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 6 out of 6 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 295 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 295 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-i386.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-i386.c,v |retrieving revision 1.112 |diff -u -p -r1.112 elf32-i386.c |--- bfd/elf32-i386.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:38 -0000 1.112 |+++ bfd/elf32-i386.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:04 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 335 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 335 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-s390.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-s390.c,v |retrieving revision 1.49 |diff -u -p -r1.49 elf32-s390.c |--- bfd/elf32-s390.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.49 |+++ bfd/elf32-s390.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:06 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 375 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 375 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-sh.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-sh.c,v |retrieving revision 1.95 |diff -u -p -r1.95 elf32-sh.c |--- bfd/elf32-sh.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.95 |+++ bfd/elf32-sh.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:10 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 412 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 412 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-sparc.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-sparc.c,v |retrieving revision 1.57 |diff -u -p -r1.57 elf32-sparc.c |--- bfd/elf32-sparc.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.57 |+++ bfd/elf32-sparc.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:11 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 452 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 452 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf64-s390.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf64-s390.c,v |retrieving revision 1.50 |diff -u -p -r1.50 elf64-s390.c |--- bfd/elf64-s390.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.50 |+++ bfd/elf64-s390.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:13 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. patch: **** malformed patch at line 484: Ix86-64.c =============================================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -g0 -p4 < /usr/portage/sys-devel/binutils/files/2.14/binutils-2.14.90.0.7-tls-section-alignment.patch =============================================================== missing header for unified diff at line 76 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 76 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au> |To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com |Subject: tls section alignment | |This testcase fails to return the expected status on powerpc-linux, |depending on optimization level (really on where .tdata starts, but that |often changes depending on optimization). | |__thread int a = 10; |__thread int b __attribute__ ((aligned (8))); | |int main (void) |{ | return a; |} | |What's happening is that the TLS segment, made up of .tdata and .tbss, |ends up with p_vaddr not a multiple of p_align. Under these |circumstances glibc rounds down the TLS segment start address, which |affects targets that set their thread pointer from the start of a TLS |block. In the powerpc-linux testcase, we end up accessing *(&a-1). | |I started off fixing this just for powerpc and powerpc64, then decided |to teach ld how to ensure that the TLS segment p_vaddr is aligned. | |bfd/ChangeLog | * bfd-in.h (_bfd_elf_tls_setup): Declare. | * bfd-in2.h: Regenerate. | * elf-bfd.h (struct elf_link_tls_segment): Delete. | (struct elf_link_hash_table): Add tls_sec and tls_size. | * elf.c (_bfd_elf_link_hash_table_init): Init tls_sec and tls_size. | * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_tls_setup): New function. | * elflink.h (struct elf_final_link_info): Remove first_tls_sec. | (elf_bfd_final_link): Don't set first_tls_sec here. Update code | saving tls segment info, round segment size up. | (elf_link_output_extsym): Adjust code using tls segment info. | (elf_link_input_bfd): Likewise. | * elf32-i386.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-s390.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-sh.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf32-sparc.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf64-s390.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elf64-x86-64.c (dtpoff_base, tpoff): Likewise. | * elfxx-ia64.c (elfNN_ia64_tprel_base): Likewise. | (elfNN_ia64_dtprel_base): Likewise. | * elf64-alpha.c (alpha_get_dtprel_base): Likewise. | (alpha_get_tprel_base): Likewise. | (struct alpha_relax_info): Remove tls_segment. | (elf64_alpha_relax_got_load): Adjust invocation of | alpha_get_dtprel_base and alpha_get_tprel_base. | (elf64_alpha_relax_tls_get_addr): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relax_section): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relocate_section): Likewise. | (elf64_alpha_relax_find_tls_segment): Delete. | * elf32-ppc.c (struct ppc_elf_link_hash_table): Remove tls_sec. | (ppc_elf_tls_setup): Call _bfd_elf_tls_setup. Return section. | (ppc_elf_relocate_section): Adjust to use elf.tls_sec. | * elf32-ppc.h (ppc_elf_tls_setup): Update. | * elf64-ppc.c (struct ppc_link_hash_table): Remove tls_sec. | (ppc64_elf_tls_setup): Call _bfd_elf_tls_setup. Return section. | (ppc64_elf_tls_optimize): Adjust to use elf.tls_sec. | (ppc64_elf_relocate_section): Likewise. | * elf64-ppc.h (ppc64_elf_tls_setup): Update. | |ld/ChangeLog | * emultempl/elf32.em (gld${EMULATION_NAME}_before_allocation): Call | _bfd_elf_tls_setup. | |Index: bfd/bfd-in.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/bfd-in.h,v |retrieving revision 1.68 |diff -u -p -r1.68 bfd-in.h |--- bfd/bfd-in.h 31 Oct 2003 05:32:45 -0000 1.68 |+++ bfd/bfd-in.h 4 Nov 2003 05:33:50 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 93 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 93 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf-bfd.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf-bfd.h,v |retrieving revision 1.116 |diff -u -p -r1.116 elf-bfd.h |--- bfd/elf-bfd.h 3 Nov 2003 15:17:38 -0000 1.116 |+++ bfd/elf-bfd.h 4 Nov 2003 05:33:53 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 127 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 127 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v |retrieving revision 1.205 |diff -u -p -r1.205 elf.c |--- bfd/elf.c 31 Oct 2003 05:32:45 -0000 1.205 |+++ bfd/elf.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:00 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 144 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 144 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elflink.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elflink.c,v |retrieving revision 1.48 |diff -u -p -r1.48 elflink.c |--- bfd/elflink.c 30 Oct 2003 14:13:50 -0000 1.48 |+++ bfd/elflink.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:00 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 183 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 183 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elflink.h |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elflink.h,v |retrieving revision 1.245 |diff -u -p -r1.245 elflink.h |--- bfd/elflink.h 24 Oct 2003 14:55:14 -0000 1.245 |+++ bfd/elflink.h 4 Nov 2003 05:34:02 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 6 out of 6 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 295 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 295 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-i386.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-i386.c,v |retrieving revision 1.112 |diff -u -p -r1.112 elf32-i386.c |--- bfd/elf32-i386.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:38 -0000 1.112 |+++ bfd/elf32-i386.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:04 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 335 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 335 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-s390.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-s390.c,v |retrieving revision 1.49 |diff -u -p -r1.49 elf32-s390.c |--- bfd/elf32-s390.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.49 |+++ bfd/elf32-s390.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:06 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 375 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 375 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-sh.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-sh.c,v |retrieving revision 1.95 |diff -u -p -r1.95 elf32-sh.c |--- bfd/elf32-sh.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.95 |+++ bfd/elf32-sh.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:10 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 412 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 412 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf32-sparc.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-sparc.c,v |retrieving revision 1.57 |diff -u -p -r1.57 elf32-sparc.c |--- bfd/elf32-sparc.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.57 |+++ bfd/elf32-sparc.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:11 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 2 out of 2 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 452 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 452 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: bfd/elf64-s390.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf64-s390.c,v |retrieving revision 1.50 |diff -u -p -r1.50 elf64-s390.c |--- bfd/elf64-s390.c 3 Nov 2003 15:17:39 -0000 1.50 |+++ bfd/elf64-s390.c 4 Nov 2003 05:34:13 -0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. patch: **** malformed patch at line 484: Ix86-64.c
