This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: [patch] Resolve ppc64 func descriptors as .func (via .opd)
- From: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:53:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch] Resolve ppc64 func descriptors as .func (via .opd)
On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 13:14 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:37:20 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 18:25 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > > (gdb) bt
> > > #0 0x00000000100004d0 in .f ()
> > > #1 0x0000000010000500 in .main ()
> > IMHO that is just weirdness/bug in GDB.
> No matter what it is it is a standard.
Sure for some low-level/synthetic ELF symbol name ABI.
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.
> > > You need about that looked up function symbol also the function size, starting
> > > code address, visibility and binding. It is mostly the whole GElf_Sym
> > > structure (except you do not need numerical st_name and st_shndx is probably
> > > also not useful). This is all returned by dwfl_module_addrsym in my original
> > > post.
> > OK, but you can just use the function descriptor symbol for that can't
> > you? There is nothing an synthetic generated symbol would add is there?
> In the function descriptor symbol ST_VALUE points to the descriptor.
> In the synthetic generated symbol ST_VALUE points to the code entry address.
Right, but we pass around the code entry address separately from the