From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11577 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2002 19:47:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11504 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2002 19:47:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2002 19:47:16 -0000 Received: from cse.cygnus.com (cse.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA23169; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:47:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kev@localhost) by cse.cygnus.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0HJjv511190; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:45:57 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:47:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020117194557.ZM11189@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: TAKAI Kousuke "[PATCH] fix solib-svr4.c with 64-bit bfd" (Jan 18, 4:26am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97 Caldera) To: TAKAI Kousuke , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix solib-svr4.c with 64-bit bfd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00488.txt.bz2 On Jan 18, 4:26am, TAKAI Kousuke wrote: > I had encountered a bug in GDB 5.1 compiled for sparc-sun-solaris2.8, > that GDB cannot resolve symbols in shared libraries in 32-bit environment. > (I found this problem had been reported as PR gdb/266). > > I found that this seems to be because LM_ADDR() in solib-svr4.c > sign-extends 32-bit address value into 64-bit CORE_ADDR type. > I have no access to SVR4 spec, but under SunOS 5.7 and 5.8, > says that `l_addr' is unsigned, and it seems that > l_addr should be zero-extended. > > This is a patch to fix it. [...] Thanks for your patch. While your patch fixes the problems that you're seeing on Solaris, it breaks GDB on certain other platforms. In fact, your patch simply reverts a change that was made last year to "fix" GDB on one of these other platforms. I discuss this matter more fully in http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2001-10/msg00036.html I'll be revisiting this matter in a couple of weeks and will fix it properly then. (The changes are a bit involved.) Thanks again, Kevin