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: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:04:11 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch] Resolve ppc64 func descriptors as .func (via .opd)
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:56 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:35:55 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > If we could keep the symbol values, except the adjusted st_value intact
> > that would have my preference.
> Yes, it is this way.
> > If you adjust shndxp, do you also adjust sym.st_shndx?
> No, I do not. One cannot always set the real value there, it could belong to
> I can force there SHN_XINDEX during the .opd -> .text rewrite so that no one
> mistakenly reads it.
No. Lets keep the shndxp/sym.shndx values as they are.
> > Both :)
> Please do not mix those two.
I am not mixing, I have two concerns.
> > The symbol name against which we are matching is what it is, we
> > shouldn't change its name IMHO.
> We already change st_value and st_shndx. Why not to change also the name?
Because then we change the contract of the function even more. Just
changing the st_value can be seen as how the function already works (we
consider resolving the function descriptor address just like adjusting
the st_value for the module location), but stretching it to do other
things too means we really should look into a new function for new