This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
RE: [PATCH, MIPS] Support shared library debug with MIPS PIE (glibc)
- From: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:30:36 +0000
- Subject: RE: [PATCH, MIPS] Support shared library debug with MIPS PIE (glibc)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235321175F69 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1506231512570 dot 4489 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B02353211760CF at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1506231525420 dot 4489 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Matthew Fortune wrote:
>
> > > What if there are both DT_MIPS_RLD_MAP2 and DT_MIPS_RLD_MAP? Will
> > > that never happen?
> >
> > That will happen for executables much like MIPS has an unused DT_DEBUG
> > entry. I figured it would be better to add DT_MIPS_RLD_MAP2 to all
> > executables allowing this to be the only tag supported by dynamic
> > linkers that may not care about compatibility with pre-existing
> executables.
> >
> > Are you thinking there should be a consistency check that the two tags
> > lead to the same address? I guess there would be no harm in that but
> > equally it may not be of much value. What do you think?
>
> Are you saying that glibc never needs to handle both because if both are
> present they will point to the same address and so new glibc, looking
> only at DT_MIPS_RLD_MAP2, will work fine (for non-PIE) with old GDB?
That's right.
Thanks,
Matthew
> If so, the patch is OK if the binutils patch is approved.
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com