This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin 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] |
On Feb 9 19:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 9 18:15, Achim Gratz wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen writes: > > > I think it's important to keep the information in sync while building > > > the packages. A later rebase will break the connection between debug > > > symbols and runtime symbols as well, obviously. > > > > Obviously? I have no indication that the debug information is damaged > > once it's been stripped off into a separate file. Which may be a hint > > on what rebase might do wrong. > > What I mean is this. If the debug info file does not refer to the > same addresses than the file in memory, then GDB doesn't resolve the > symbols correctly. > > > > Maybe we should think of rebasing the actual binaries as well as their > > > debugging counterparts to keep everything in sync, but that's a bit > > > much effort... > > > > I may not understand what is really going on, but the way I see it, > > rebase does exactly that while the debug information is still part of > > the object file. It seems to do something extra or wrong, since objcopy > > will the not be able to copy out that information. Looking with objdump > > reveals the section is still there ans has contents, but it doesn't get > > associated with the code in the correct manner anymore. > > I'm not an expert on this stuff either, so I can just assume that the > rebasing doesn't catch the debug info and that the debug info then > points into nirvana. I also don't know if there's a way around that. Also, is it possible that we have relocation types in the file which are not handled by rebase? I just had a quick look into the sources and there's a type IMAGE_REL_BASED_ABSOLUTE which is skipped. Or, what if e.g. the expression *patch_adr += difference; in imagehelper/sections.cc is mistreated because of a missing gcc -fwrapv option on the command line? There might be quite a few problems lurking here... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Attachment:
pgpF9DMenw0yp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |