This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [64 bit] relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PC32
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:33:28 +0200
- Subject: Re: [64 bit] relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PC32
- References: <51A1AE43 dot 3070506 at gmail dot com> <20130527093451 dot GB2483 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51A5D4FA dot 1090304 at gmail dot com> <20130529102820 dot GA19456 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51A5DCE5 dot 30105 at gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On May 29 12:48, marco atzeri wrote:
> Il 5/29/2013 12:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen ha scritto:
> >Hi Marco,
> >
> >On May 29 12:14, marco atzeri wrote:
> >>Il 5/27/2013 11:34 AM, Corinna Vinschen ha scritto:
> >>>On May 26 08:40, marco atzeri wrote:
> >>>>trying to build octave I hit:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>You can try. The general idea was that this isn't necessary.
> >>>-mcmodel=medium is default and despite the text you're quoting, the idea
> >>>was that the base address of the result shouldn't matter on PE/COFF.
> >>>Unfortunately the linker is making a fuss about that yet and maybe
> >>>there's still another problem as well.
> >>>
> >>>So you have two choices:
> >>>
> >>>- Try -mcmodel=large, but there's a good chance it crashes (harfbuzz
> >>> apparently does).
> >>
> >>it crashed, but it could be another reason as also the second option
> >>failed with 1.7.18-6
> >>>
> >>>- Link with -Wl,--image-base-address -Wl,0x10000000 and rebase the
> >>> DLLs afterwards to some arbitrary address between 0x4:00000000 and
> >>> 0x6:00000000. This should work as expected.
> >>
> >>this worked. (-Wl,--image-base -Wl,0x10000000")
> >>with latest 1.7.18-8 not with 1.7.18-6
> >
> >Sorry to say that, but this is not overly helpful. For one thing, you
> >mean 1.7.19, not 18, right? How exactly did it work with 1.7.19-8?
> >Only after using --image-base 0x10000000 or also after the rebase?
>
> 1.7.19. no need to rebase for "make check"
And does it still work after rebasing it to a high address?
> >What exactly did not work with 1.7.19-6? Building or running?
>
> running. it was segfaulting almost on start.
> Rebase made no difference; same for CFLAGS="-fwrapv"
Do you have a stackdump file?
> Did you
> >only try with --image-base 0x10000000 or also with rebase? To what
> >address did you rebase? If building worked but running didn't, what has
> >gone wrong? Was it a fork problem, perhaps? Any hints from the
> >stackdump? GDB? Did you check for a collision with another DLL?
> >
> >Also, what about 1.7.19-7? The difference between -6, -7, and -8 is
> >exactly one patch per version. It might be interesting to learn about
> >the patch which, apparently, fixed the problem.
>
> I missed the 1.7.19-7 during my tests, do you need I test it ?
It would be nice.
Thanks,
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat