[gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

Back on gdb@ list.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Pierre Muller<muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Paul Pluzhnikov [mailto:ppluzhnikov@google.com]
>> Envoyé : Tuesday, September 08, 2009 6:37 AM
>> À : Pierre Muller
>> Objet : Re: [gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan
>>
>> Off-list.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Pierre Muller<muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >  [ 6] .SUNW_version VERNEED  0000572c 00572c 000060 01   A  5 3  4
>> >  [ 7] .SUNW_version VERDEF   0000578c 00578c 000038 01   A  5 2  4
>> >  [ 8] .SUNW_versym  VERSYM   000057c4 0057c4 000148 02   A  4 0  4
>>
>> AFAICT, above sections do *not* overlap, which means that there is a
>> bug in my patch (I don't see it :-(, or something else went wrong.
>>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Pierre Muller<muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >  I checked your patch and it does solve the problem.
>> >> > Instead of a internal_error, I get a warning
>> >> > about .SUNW_version and .SUNW_versym sections
>> >> > between intertwined.
>>
>> Could you please send me the exact warning from patched GDB.

> Here you are,
> hope you can do something with it!
>
> (top-gdb) start
> Temporary breakpoint 3 at 0x80c7074: file ../../src/gdb/gdb.c, line 28.
> Starting program: /usr/local/src/gdbcvs/build/gdb/gdb
> warning: Unexpected overlap between section `.SUNW_version' from `/usr/lib/ld.so.1' [0xfefc378c, 0xfefc37ec) and section `.SUNW_versym' from `/usr/lib/ld.so.1' [0xfefc37c4, 0xfefc390c)
> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
> warning: Unexpected overlap between section `.SUNW_version' from `/usr/lib/ld.so.1' [0xfefc378c, 0xfefc37ec) and section `.SUNW_versym' from `/usr/lib/ld.so.1' [0xfefc37c4, 0xfefc390c)
> [New Thread 1 (LWP 1)]
> [Switching to Thread 1 (LWP 1)]

It seems pretty clear now that BFD (or something) is getting confused
by the presence of two separate .SUNW_version sections. In particular,
section #7 somehow acquired the size (0x60) from section #6, and that
causes the warning.

I'll go ahead and debug this today.

Thanks,
-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov