This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: multi-arch TODO

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? 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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]