[64 bit] relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_PC32
Wed May 29 12:33:00 GMT 2013
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.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
More information about the Cygwin-apps