This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: Adding an extra field to Elf_Internal_Sym
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 17:00 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
> > I think your argument about the risk of externally exposing internal
> > data is persuasive. Other than that, I have no objection to either
> > approach provided it doesn't change anything in the written object file.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> > I think there's perhaps also an argument for doing something along these
> > lines for the T bit in function symbols. At present the use of
> > STT_THUMB_FUNC internally causes tools like nm to incorrectly list Thumb
> > function symbols.
>
> Do you mean keeping the T bit in the symbol value, rather than masking
> it out?
>
> I'd originally rejected that because it seemed to make things more
> complicated. I hadn't realised "nm" got things wrong though. If we do
> want things like "nm" to print the in-object symbol value, then maybe we
> should go that way and add helper functions to mask out the T bit when
> needed.
No, I was thinking of moving it to a different field (attribute) rather
than changing the type of the symbol (so all function symbols are then
STT_FUNC).
There certainly is an argument that nm should use the raw value field of
a symbol, but I'm more concerned at present that we get output such as
sym |00000000| T |<processor specific>: 13| | |.text
Which is misleading on ARM EABI as there is no such type...
R.
>
> Richard