From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2151 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2007 17:50:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 2027 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Aug 2007 17:50:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:50:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l78HoQYF021288 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:50:26 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l78HoQR3006098 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:50:26 -0400 Received: from ironwood.lan (vpn-14-125.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.125]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l78HoPRj023089 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:50:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:50:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] fix build failure in solib-som.c Message-ID: <20070808105024.26610da9@ironwood.lan> In-Reply-To: <20070808174437.GB3738@adacore.com> References: <20070807204529.GA3681@adacore.com> <20070807144733.26f94534@ironwood.lan> <20070807224348.GA3738@adacore.com> <20070807161954.748a5eb5@ironwood.lan> <20070808174437.GB3738@adacore.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-08/txt/msg00146.txt.bz2 On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:44:37 -0700 Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > > > > > 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? > > > > It is, but those addresses won't be relocated. In order to be > > consistent with the other ports, I think these values should be > > relocated. Note that solib.c's solib_map_sections() sets `addr_low' > > and `addr_high' for .text after the relocation has been done. Clearly > > this won't work for SOM since the .text section is named differently. > > However, given that `addr_low' and `addr_high' are set after the > > relocation has been performed (for other ports with a .text), I think > > it makes sense to arrange the SOM-specific code as suggested in my > > earlier reply. I'm beginning to think too that the assignments to > > addr_low and addr_high ought to be removed from som_current_sos(). > > I had a closer look. I don't think we need to relocate the addr_low > and addr_high addresses, because they were extracted from the load > map info (which I would imagine would contain already relocated > addresses). This is in som_current_sos. Ah, okay. > This is only by luck, but it looks like my original patch still > makes sense, no? I did a quick test by running any program, and > doing a "info sharedlibrary", and it looks likes the addresses > are indeed relocated (they don't correspond to the $CODE$ or $TEXT$ > addresses printed by objdump). Sounds good. Go ahead and check in your original patch. Kevin