RFC: Adding an extra field to Elf_Internal_Sym

[Richard Sandiford]

Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
> I think your argument about the risk of externally exposing internal
> data is persuasive.  Other than that, I have no objection to either
> approach provided it doesn't change anything in the written object file.

OK, thanks.

> I think there's perhaps also an argument for doing something along these
> lines for the T bit in function symbols.  At present the use of
> STT_THUMB_FUNC internally causes tools like nm to incorrectly list Thumb
> function symbols.

Do you mean keeping the T bit in the symbol value, rather than masking
it out?

I'd originally rejected that because it seemed to make things more
complicated.  I hadn't realised "nm" got things wrong though.  If we do
want things like "nm" to print the in-object symbol value, then maybe we
should go that way and add helper functions to mask out the T bit when
needed.

Richard