This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: multi-arch TODO
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- To: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:24:49 -0700
- Subject: Re: multi-arch TODO
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Apr 22, 4:09am, David S. Miller wrote:
> SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING - Gross hack time... some compilation
> environments don't fill in N_FUN/N_SO stabs, you have to compute
> them by hand by looking up function names in the symbol table and
> so forth.
> Much confusion in this area, some Linux targets define this, some
> not. All Solaris targets define it, but that makes sense based upon
> the commentary around the changes this macro define protects.
> Why don't all Linux targets define this? Do some binutils ports
> perform this optimization and others not? Or was there some bug
> in N_FUN/N_SO stabs in binutils and/or gcc that this is papering
> around? email@example.com is the one who added this to powerpc
> and i386 Linux.
I haven't given it a lot of thought recently, but my opinion is that
the SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING code ought to be enabled everywhere.
The only downside that I can think of is that we lose the ability
to put a symbol at address 0.