dwfl_module_relocate_address() versus base address

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 13:06 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Also for the kernel we still do things slightly differently (making
> things relative to _stext) . I checked in the following patch to my
> pr6866 branch and will be testing more with it.

This is not completely true. I was confused since we also rely on the
secname produced by dwfl_module_relocation_info() (being empty for
ET_DYN). So that is now also replicated by hand in the new patch. It is
getting slightly messy now :{

Cheers,

Mark
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: translate.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/systemtap/attachments/20081215/703b97a5/attachment.bin>