From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13933 invoked by alias); 16 May 2008 18:58:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 13922 invoked by uid 22791); 16 May 2008 18:58:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 May 2008 18:57:51 +0000 Received: (qmail 25612 invoked from network); 16 May 2008 18:57:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 16 May 2008 18:57:49 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: "Ulrich Weigand" Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove addr, endaddr, offset from obj_section Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 02:17:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200805161832.m4GIWS30028466@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200805161832.m4GIWS30028466@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805161957.47190.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00516.txt.bz2 A Friday 16 May 2008 19:32:28, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: > > > I seems the comment is a bit offbase. The reader still applies > > ANOFFSET to the symbols, so psymtab->symtab expansion time sees > > the correct section offsets. It feels like the xcoff reader > > should cope with the section offsets != 0 internally, and not > > do this ignoring, but since I don't have access to any AIX system, > > I didn't investigate that further. But I do think things should > > still work as they used to. > > I haven't looked into the patch in detail, but just one comment here: > The guard on this block of code is > #ifndef DEPRECATED_IBM6000_TARGET > so it is executed on every target *but* AIX. Removing it doesn't > change the behaviour on AIX, so there should be no need to specially > test on AIX. > Yes, I believe that's right. To make it clear, I was refering to investigating why xcoff_symfile_offsets ignores the passed-in offsets (which can come from a add-symbol-file command from the user), and make it not do that. I don't know much xcoff, and why that was needed, but I had the impression we could get around needing to do that. > (In any case, I'll be happy to test patches on AIX if necessary.) (Thanks! Nice to know that.) -- Pedro Alves