From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21867 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2007 17:56:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 21845 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2007 17:56:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:56:09 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DEC54B267; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:56:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11964B262; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:56:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HWyr1-0007Sx-Bw; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:56:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: Signed vs. unsigned adresses in solib-svr4 Message-ID: <20070329175607.GB28418@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Kevin Buettner References: <20070327192144.GK28164@caradoc.them.org> <20070327203551.GA22750@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14+cvs20070313 (2007-03-13) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00317.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:38:36PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:20:23PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> > - since I know that the assumption is wrong for MIPS. Isn't there an > >> > extract_address or something like that which would be suitable? > >> > >> There is extract_typed_address, but I don't know how to construct the > >> struct type that it needs. > > > > Probably builtin_type_void_data_ptr is all you need. > > How about this then? Regtestest on > {i386,ia64,ppc,ppc64,s390,s390x,x86_64}-linux. Looks good to me. Kevin, what do you think? > 2007-03-29 Andreas Schwab > > * solib-svr4.h (struct link_map_offsets): Remove l_addr_size, > l_ld_size, l_next_size, l_prev_size, l_name_size. > > * solib-svr4.c (LM_ADDR_FROM_LINK_MAP): Use extract_typed_address > to extract addresses from link map. > (LM_DYNAMIC_FROM_LINK_MAP): Likewise. > (LM_NEXT): Likewise. > (LM_NAME): Likewise. > (IGNORE_FIRST_LINK_MAP_ENTRY): Likewise. > (elf_locate_base): Likewise. > (open_symbol_file_object): Likewise. > (svr4_fetch_objfile_link_map): Likewise. > (SOLIB_EXTRACT_ADDRESS): Remove unused macro. > (HAS_LM_DYNAMIC_FROM_LINK_MAP): Test l_ld_offset instead of > l_ld_size. > (svr4_ilp32_fetch_link_map_offsets): Don't set removed members. > (svr4_lp64_fetch_link_map_offsets): Likewise. > > * solib-legacy.c (legacy_svr4_fetch_link_map_offsets): Don't set > removed members. Set l_ld_offset to -1 if not present. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery