This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: arm objdump bug?
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:42:05 -0400
- Subject: Re: arm objdump bug?
- References: <4ABCCBEF.60307@oarcorp.com>
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:55:59AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are doing object coverage analysis on RTEMS. We
> have been spending a lot of time looking at objdumps.
> Our program which looks for nops and marks instructions
> as not executed got confused when it saw this:
>
>
> _Context_Switch( &_Thread_BSP_context, &_Thread_Heir->Registers );
> f384: ea0015cc b 14abc <_CPU_Context_switch>
> f388: 0001fd30 .word 0x0001fd30
> f38c: 0001fa84 .word 0x0001fa84
> f390: 0001fbd4 .word 0x0001fbd4
> f394: 0001f7d8 .word 0x0001f7d8
> f398: fbb4 .short 0xfbb4
> f39a: 01 .byte 0x01
> ...
Typically, this means that the byte at f39b isn't just zero - it's
unreadable for some reason, possibly because it isn't part of a
section, or it's marked code instead of data (bad mapping symbols).
There've been recent fixes for the mapping symbol code too.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery