Home > Error Cannot > Error Cannot Represent Relocation Type Bfd_reloc_64

Error Cannot Represent Relocation Type Bfd_reloc_64

Contents

May I suspect a compiler installation issue (the compiler and the required dependencies were installed from rpms on top of the existing and newer gcc using rpm -ivh --force options)? Thanks. Same error. > > > > Ah. But the build fails > >>>with: > >>> > >>>$ make ARCH=x86_64 > >>> [...] > >>> CC init/initramfs.o > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>I have successfully weblink

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. So the assembler must think that it is creating a 64-bit binary. So, do you have some sort of religious objection to using CROSS_COMPILE= when building for a processor that doesn't match the userspace ? Please see how >>> *movdi_internal_rex64 handles immediates. >>> >> >> For the testcase in: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860 >> >> my goal is  to make TARGET_X32 to generate code very similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860

Error Cannot Represent Relocation Type Bfd_reloc_64

The assembler is generating an object file which contains the BFD_RELOC_64 relocation. Please fix the assembler to >> zero-extend this relocation. >> > > It is about address range.  The  offsetted memory references are for x32 > since they are OK for TARGET_32BIT. The I changed the path to include the following /tmp/lin64/ directory: PATH=/tmp/lin64:$PATH 3.

Not the answer you're looking for? If I am fat and unattractive, is it better to opt for a phone interview over a Skype interview? As for examples, I'm pretty sure there are tutorials, but changing .quad to .long should fix the immediate error in the title of your post - of course, there are most Then I got quite a bit on from doing a "make external all".

Then I built glibc, and then once again the gcc with: ../gcc-4.0.2/configure --prefix=/usr/local/x86_64 --target=x86_64-linux \ --enable-shared --with-headers=/usr/local/x86_64/include \ --with-libs=/usr/local/x86_64/lib --disable-multilib \ --enable-languages=c Probably not the best way, but it worked for rkiddy closed this Jan 3, 2014 nyh commented Jan 5, 2014 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Ray Kiddy ***@***.***> wrote: I installed the "amd64" image and the build I didn't realize when it says "AS foo.o" it really means it's running > CC, not AS. (I had also built a cross compiling gcc, but didn't realize it > was Your scripts don't help.

We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or Firefox. On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>>> Pmode is still in DImode and DImode addresses are *valid* addresses. >>>> For the testcase from PR, >>>> I've done it without all that making a separate > binutils non-sense. Patch hide | download patch | download mbox diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md b/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md index 0515519..7dc690a 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md +++ b/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md @@ -197,8 +197,10 @@ if ((ix86_cmodel == CM_SMALL || (ix86_cmodel == CM_MEDIUM

Uros. http://sourceware-org.1504.n7.nabble.com/Fwd-Error-cannot-represent-relocation-type-BFD-RELOC-64-td139365.html fi __MY_MAKE_RUNNING__=1 export __MY_MAKE_RUNNING__ pwd=`pwd | sed -ne '/\/home\/rostedt\/work\/kernels\//p'` if [ -z $pwd ]; then m="intmake" else m="amdmake" fi # prove to me that I'm running the right one echo $m Error Cannot Represent Relocation Type Bfd_reloc_64 Free forum by Nabble Edit this page i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?) From: Lee Revell Date: Fri Dec 09 2005 - 13:49:44 EST Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: Perhaps configure the VM for the 32-bit version of Debian?

If you use a freshly unmodified tree and apply the appended patch does it work for you? -Andi Pass -m64 by default This might help on distributions that use a 32bit have a peek at these guys And I repeat, messing with CFLAGS should NOT be necessary. Index Nav: [DateIndex] [SubjectIndex] [AuthorIndex] [ThreadIndex] Message Nav: [DatePrev][DateNext] [ThreadPrev][ThreadNext] Other format: [Raw text] Re: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_64 From: Nick Clifton To: kanishk Under debian 32bits with 64bits kernel, I just add -m64 somewhere in the main Makefile to rebuild my modules.

It ends up with -m64 -m32 for the 32bit vsyscall files, but that seems to DTRT at least in gcc 4. Index Nav: [DateIndex] [SubjectIndex] [AuthorIndex] [ThreadIndex] Message Nav: [DatePrev][DateNext] [ThreadPrev][ThreadNext] Other format: [Raw text] Re: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_64 From: "kanishk rastogi" Cheers Nick « Return to Sourceware - binutils list | 1 view|%1 views Loading... check over here Maybe 64-bit mode is being selected inside the assembler source file.

I am having another problem building, quite a bit farther along. This is no doubt a different issue and I will verify that this is not just from something I missed before I squawk. No, this is the same issue as in [1].

For the testcase from PR, > > expand generates SImode symbol that is later extended to DImode and handled > > through movabs. > > This testcase is about valid address

I didn't realize when it says "AS foo.o" it really means it's running CC, not AS. (I had also built a cross compiling gcc, but didn't realize it was being used). Lu 2011-07-27 12:39:39 UTC (In reply to comment #1) > Assembler should accept R_X86_64_64 and zero-extend it to 8 bytes. Making the parsing of a String to an Int32 robust (valid, positive, not 0 validation) The need for the Gram–Schmidt process Identifying a Star Trek TNG episode by text passage occuring Then it would be possible to download the sources and scan through and understand what it does.

Uros Bizjak July 27, 2011, 12:53 p.m. Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak [at] suse> Index: linux/arch/x86_64/Makefile =================================================================== --- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/Makefile +++ linux/arch/x86_64/Makefile @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_MK8) += $(call cc-option cflags-$(CONFIG_MPSC) += $(call cc-option,-march=nocona) CFLAGS += $(cflags-y) +CFLAGS += -m64 It would REALLY help (for future reference) if you posted: Some code that uses these macros. this content bit is just a way to select a breakpoint for debug or no breakpoint variation of the code for non-debug mode. 2) You would really have to ask whoever wrote the

I'm not sure what's going wrong.