This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[RFC] Do we need to support PIE + stabs?
- From: Tom de Vries <tdevries at suse dot de>
- To: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:18:52 +0200
- Subject: [RFC] Do we need to support PIE + stabs?
- References: <20190816155753.GA22229@delia> <87y2xudlj5.fsf@tromey.com>
[ was: Re: [PATCH][gdb/symtab] Handle gas-generated stabs with -fPIE/-pie ]
On 09-10-2019 16:46, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
>
> Tom> The main3 function in the executable comes from dw2-ranges3.o, which is
> Tom> generated like this (leaving out -fPIE -pie for clarity):
> Tom> ...
> Tom> $ gcc -S dw2-ranges3.c
> Tom> $ gcc dw2-ranges3.s -o dw2-ranges3.o -gstabs
> Tom> ...
> Tom> So, main3 is described in stabs format, generated by gas.
>
> Tom> 2019-08-16 Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
>
> Tom> PR symtab/12497
> Tom> * dbxread.c (process_one_symbol): Handle relocation of SLINE address
> Tom> without preceding FUN/FNAME.
>
> I don't know enough about stabs to say whether this change is correct or
> whether it will cause problems in some other scenario. It modifies
> "valu" - which isn't then reset, so perhaps it's used in some other way
> later.
>
> Do we need to support PIE + stabs? Can we just declare stabs as mostly
> dead and ignore this instead? On the whole that would be my preference,
> if it's possible, because in my view this more closely mirrors
> reality... my understanding is that, last time anybody checked, stabs
> were still used by a few programs in a typical distro (for some unknown
> reason), but otherwise they are just totally obsolete.
I don't know the answer to that, and I think it's a question broader
than suggested by the current subject, so, promoting the question to the
subject.
Thanks,
- Tom