From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24056 invoked by alias); 12 May 2006 23:12:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 24048 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2006 23:12:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (HELO e34.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.152) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 23:12:35 +0000 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4CNB7KA024788 for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 19:11:07 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k4CNB2ck172776 for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:11:07 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k4CNB1ED024778 for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:11:02 -0600 Received: from dufur.beaverton.ibm.com (dufur.beaverton.ibm.com [9.47.22.20]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4CNB1lr024751; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:11:01 -0600 Subject: Re: [patch] Strange stepping behaviour with ppc32 with secure PLTs From: PAUL GILLIAM Reply-To: pgilliam@us.ibm.com To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Alan Modra In-Reply-To: <20060512225044.GA20706@nevyn.them.org> References: <1147469935.3672.114.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060512225044.GA20706@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 01:46:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1147471634.3672.121.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00273.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 18:50 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:38:55PM -0700, PAUL GILLIAM wrote: . . . > > > What do you mean by "unknown section"? Let me retroactively rephrase my answer: "I *really* meant 'undefined' section". 8-) > The second patch is definitely > incorrect. Generally any use of SECT_OFF_TEXT for something whose > section you don't know is incorrect. > Not only that, but it had worse testsuite results 8-) -=# Paul #=-