From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18294 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2007 22:40:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 18260 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2007 22:40:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:40:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FB12A9FF5; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id NqHYS9Y8NcQa; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AC82A9FEA; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5814FE7B54; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:40:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] fix build failure in solib-som.c Message-ID: <20070807224348.GA3738@adacore.com> References: <20070807204529.GA3681@adacore.com> <20070807144733.26f94534@ironwood.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070807144733.26f94534@ironwood.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2007-08/txt/msg00138.txt.bz2 > > I haven't tested this change, but wouldn't the attached patch make sense? > > I don't think we need to keep track of which section is the text section > > at this place, since this is done differently somewhere else (in the > > current_sos method). So I just removed the associated piece of code. > > > > 2007-08-07 Joel Brobecker > > > > * solib-som.c (som_relocate_section_addresses): Stop saving > > the $CODE$ section in the so_list structure. > > > > This files compiles fine again after this change is applied. > > > > Would that be OK to apply? > > I think it would be better to revise the code to set so->addr_low and > so->addr_high to sec->addr and sec->endaddr respectively. You'll also > have to move this block of code to the end of the function. Isn't that already done in som_current_sos, though? -- Joel