[Bug dynamic-link/26151] Add ET_* markers for debug files, and enhance ldd (ld.so) to use them.

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151

--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> > > > Who are the consumers of this kind of special debug files?
> > > 
> > > Split debug files are used by debuggers.
> > > 
> > > The problem is that tooling to build packages has to manipulate lists of
> > > files and distinguish between different types of files in a robust manner to
> > > build installed file lists.
> > 
> > Since debuggers can exam special debug files, will a single ET_GNU_DEBUG
> > be sufficient?
> 
> Yes, I think that would suffice.
> 
> When the ELF file requires completely different semantics for processing
> then my opinion is that the ET_* value should change.

Let's make a proposal for ET_DEBUG to gABI.  If it is rejected, we send
ET_GNU_DEBUG to gnu-gABI.

> Likewise I think we need ET_GNU_KMOD, but given that we haven't seen any
> problem there, and *.ko's are limited to specific packages, the issue isn't
> as general as *all* packages having to handle split debug information.

How different are .ko files from .o files?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.