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 Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:19:52AM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:53:12PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > (gdb) bt
> > > > > #0  0x00000000100004d0 in .f ()
> > > > > #1  0x0000000010000500 in .main ()
> > [...]
> > But I don't see why that has to leak through to the user in a backtrace
> > where they just want to know which function name corresponds to a
> > specific address. The extra dot doesn't add any value in this case and
> > is just confusing.
> Not entirely -- the two locations are distinct, and a breakpoint can
> pass through one and not the other, which could make a difference to
> certain low-level debugging tasks.

I am not sure I follow how this would work.
A function descriptor symbol doesn't point to executable code, just
to some data that describes the function and where its entry point is.
Or do you mean someone could place a data watchpoint on it?
I don't think that will be easily confused, even when doing such low
level debugging.

But my point was more that in a backtrace it is more natural to
associate the actual function name with the address of the code
than prefixing it with an artificial dot.



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