This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Kill SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING (was Re: multi-arch TODO)
Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:00am, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Sounds find to me, how about this patch?
> > 2002-04-23 David S. Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > * config/i386/tm-i386sol2.h, config/i386/tm-linux.h,
> > config/powerpc/tm-linux.h, config/powerpc/tm-ppc-eabi.h,
> > config/sparc/tm-sun4sol2.h (SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING): Kill.
> > * dbxread.c, elfread.c, minsyms.c, mdebugread.c, symmisc.c,
> > symtab.h (whole file): Act as if SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING was
> > always defined, kill ifdefs.
> Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. It looks okay to me, but it
> needs to be carefully considered and approved (or not) by the symtab
> As noted earlier, the downside is that we lose the ability to put a
> symbol at address 0. This doesn't pose a problem for operating
> systems which'll never map part of the program at address 0, but there
> may be some embedded environments for which this is a concern.
Replace "may be" with "almost certainly are".