Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> writes:

> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> Martin Bligh wrote:
>>
>>> http://test.kernel.org/abat/49037/debug/test.log.0
>>>
>>>   AS      arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect.o
>>>   LD      arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect
>>>   AS      arch/x86_64/boot/setup.o
>>>   LD      arch/x86_64/boot/setup
>>>   AS      arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/head.o
>>>   CC      arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.o
>>>   OBJCOPY arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin
>>> BFD: Warning: Writing section `.data.percpu' to huge (ie negative) file
>>> offset 0x804700c0.
>>>
> /usr/local/autobench/sources/x86_64-cross/gcc-3.4.0-glibc-2.3.2/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-objcopy:
>>> arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin: File truncated
>>> make[2]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin] Error 1
>>> make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux] Error 2
>>> make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
>>> 09/25/06-09:13:48 Build the kernel. Failed rc = 2
>>> 09/25/06-09:13:49 build: kernel build Failed rc = 1
>>>
>>> Wierd. Same box compiled 2.6.18 fine.
>>>
>>
>> Pretty sure this isn't a space problem, as we have just checked space
>> before the build and I've taken no action since then.  Someone did
>> mention "tool chain issue" when it was first spotted.  Will check with
>> them and see why they thought that.
>>
>
> Does this box have an older version of binutils (2.15?)?  If so, it might be
> getting upset over the patch "note-section" in Andi's queue.  I know it has been
> a bit problematic, but I don't know if the problems manifest in this way.

I have seen this one as well, and it wasn't a space problem, but some weird
toolchain issue.  I solved it by upgrading my toolchain, because I wanted
the dwarf unwind support and that required a newer toolchain then I had
been using anyway.

My old toolchain was a cross compiler based on:
GNU ld version 2.13.90.0.4 20020814

Eric