This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] more adjustments to elf_find_function
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at novell dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:05:26 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] more adjustments to elf_find_function
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
1) It does not apply the same adjustment to arm_elf_find_function in
That could be easily addressed; I wonder, however, why the same
(generic) code exists in two places.
Because I was lazy...
I didn't even know there's a second
instance of it, and for such arch-specific files I'd view this as a task
the maintainers of the arch would have to carry out (after all it must
have been them to decide the duplicate this and perhaps a lot more
True - although I think that it might be nicer if we allowed some hooks
to be created to insert into the generic find_function routine and then
there would be no need for a target specific version.
I think it's right (at least I intended it to behave exactly as you
describe it). In that place I can't judge about the meaning of symbols
between STT_LOPROC and STT_HIPROC anyway, so considering them 'normal'
symbols seemed more obvious to me. If an arch indeed has a symbol type
that needs to be ignored here, then a new hook would be needed.
In any case the state change can't be at the end of the STT_FUNC case:
STT_OBJECT and STT_TLS (as well as any future types) ones would then be
mis-treated, and especially wrt. future extensions I used the assumption
that those (see the relatively new STT_TLS) would be 'normal' rather
than 'special' in the sense used here.
OK then, in which case I have no further objections to the patch, so
please check it in.