This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the elfutils 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: [patch] Resolve ppc64 func descriptors as .func (via .opd)

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:59:42 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> But you haven't convinced me that we need to mangle the symbol
> or the return string. Please just keep it simple.

Yes, this is what I try to do.  BFD is proven to work and also one stays safe
when user interchangeably uses binutils<->elfutils input/output.

> but mangling the symbol name/return string shouldn't be part of it.

This would break the ppc64 ABI, I cannot do that as I have some professional

What is the next step?

(1) Submit an approval request to IBM as I have proposed in:
    Not sure how do you see that but IMNSHO they will say ".funcname".

(2) Discuss how to map name -> addr for "funcname"
    (when there is no ".funcname") without writing such implementation.

(3) Discuss how to map name -> addr for "funcname"
    (when there is no ".funcname") after I write the implementation.

If we return "funcname" I really do not understand how it can work.
"funcname" -> addr needs to report the function descriptor.
But then we return name which does not map back to the address for which we
reported the name.


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