From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 13 06:42:05 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: stable@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147B1354;
 Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:42:05 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru)
Received: from mx.nsu.ru (mx.nsu.ru [84.237.50.39])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8258214;
 Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:42:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from regency.nsu.ru ([193.124.210.26])
 by mx.nsu.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
 (envelope-from <danfe@regency.nsu.ru>)
 id 1UQu9K-0004s0-L8; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:41:22 +0700
Received: from regency.nsu.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by regency.nsu.ru (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r3D6g7kw079697;
 Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:42:07 +0700 (NOVT)
 (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru)
Received: (from danfe@localhost)
 by regency.nsu.ru (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id r3D6fo9Z079639;
 Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:41:50 +0700 (NOVT) (envelope-from danfe)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:41:50 +0700
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru>
To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: fusefs-kmod does not work on 8-STABLE?
Message-ID: <20130413064150.GA72951@regency.nsu.ru>
References: <20130410052710.GA36137@regency.nsu.ru>
 <20130412101746.GA68687@regency.nsu.ru>
 <20130412142802.GA1657@regency.nsu.ru>
 <E8564AE3-2D7F-495D-8E00-6D0EAAC5FB13@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E8564AE3-2D7F-495D-8E00-6D0EAAC5FB13@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:42:05 -0000

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:12:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > Does anyone have a clue why new ld(1) plays so badly with our system
> > toolchain on 8.x (at least)?
> 
> Maybe because there is almost 10 years difference between those
> implementations? :-)
> 
> In any case, to figure out what is different, just try linking the
> kernel module with the system ld and the ports ld, and comparing
> "readelf -a" output.

Good idea.  I've uploaded both outputs if someone wants to take a look.
Not surprisingly, "bad" output is shorter: readelf(1) reported only 16
section headers vs. "good" 18 (missing .got, .gnu_debuglink, and empty
.bss, yet having .eh_frame instead).  Haven't look more closely yet:

    http://193.124.210.26/readelf.bad
    http://193.124.210.26/readelf.good

> Or upload both module versions somewhere, so we can all have a look.

Sure, at the same URL, hello{.c,_bad.ko,_good.ko}.  Although it should be
pretty easy to reproduce locally: just install fresh devel/binutils, put
$localbase/bin in front of your $path, and rebuild hello.ko (or any your
favorite module).

./danfe