From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31645 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2002 16:43:47 -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 31609 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2002 16:43:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2002 16:43:45 -0000 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA05393; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3NGhgW09028; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:43:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:43:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020423164342.ZM9027@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: "David S. Miller" "[RFA] Kill SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING (was Re: multi-arch TODO)" (Apr 23, 3:00am) References: <20020422.040949.16307644.davem@redhat.com> <1020422152449.ZM1373@localhost.localdomain> <20020423.030048.41805003.davem@redhat.com> To: "David S. Miller" , kevinb@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Kill SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING (was Re: multi-arch TODO) Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00853.txt.bz2 On Apr 23, 3:00am, David S. Miller wrote: > > Why don't all Linux targets define this? Do some binutils ports > > perform this optimization and others not? Or was there some bug > > in N_FUN/N_SO stabs in binutils and/or gcc that this is papering > > around? kevinb@cyghat.com is the one who added this to powerpc > > and i386 Linux. > > I haven't given it a lot of thought recently, but my opinion is that > the SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING code ought to be enabled everywhere. > The only downside that I can think of is that we lose the ability > to put a symbol at address 0. > > Sounds find to me, how about this patch? > > 2002-04-23 David S. Miller > > * config/i386/tm-i386sol2.h, config/i386/tm-linux.h, > config/powerpc/tm-linux.h, config/powerpc/tm-ppc-eabi.h, > config/sparc/tm-sun4sol2.h (SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING): Kill. > * dbxread.c, elfread.c, minsyms.c, mdebugread.c, symmisc.c, > symtab.h (whole file): Act as if SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING was > always defined, kill ifdefs. Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. It looks okay to me, but it needs to be carefully considered and approved (or not) by the symtab maintainers. As noted earlier, the downside is that we lose the ability to put a symbol at address 0. This doesn't pose a problem for operating systems which'll never map part of the program at address 0, but there may be some embedded environments for which this is a concern. Kevin