Re: [64 bit] relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PC32

[marco atzeri <marco dot atzeri at gmail dot com>]

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"

> 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"

 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 ?

> Corinna

Marco