http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152590 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152590#c5 --- Comment #5 from Michael Matz <matz@suse.com> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
[ 817s] objcopy: Unable to recognise the format of the input file `/home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/cross-avr-gcc9-9.2.1+r275327-1.1.x86_64/usr/ lib64/gcc/avr/9/tiny-stack/libgcc.a(_satfractHQUTA.o)' ...
OK, I understand avr objects cannot be handled w/o binutils support, but why are not native binaries (like cc1 or lto1) handled (the same as in cross-avr-binutils)?
I would guess the debuginfo extraction machinery simply gives up completely after errors.
I guess that would be a good enhancement to only selectively ignore inputs that can't be handled, instead of completely giving up on generating debug info packages. (This would mean the target objects and libraries would contain debug info for some architectures, which might not be the worst thing). In any case, I'm enabling targets for binutils only selectively so that the CVE-generating script kiddies have less chance to annoy me. But I agree that the generic binutils should be able to handle the architectures we otherwise support as cross targets. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.