From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21570 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2009 13:10:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 21562 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2009 13:10:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:10:24 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2D110927; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:10:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128EF10555; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:10:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ModEE-0008Km-8V; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:10:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Joel Brobecker , Hui Zhu , gdb-patches ml , Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFA] Check solib bfd arch Message-ID: <20090918131022.GA31756@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Joel Brobecker , Hui Zhu , gdb-patches ml , Michael Snyder References: <20090917225633.GA29769@adacore.com> <200909181250.n8ICoMmD010948@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200909181250.n8ICoMmD010948@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00588.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 02:50:22PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > In your particular case, the result of compatible appears to indicate > that the target architecture sparc:v9 *cannot* run code written for > the architecture sparc:v9a; if this were true (I'm not sure about > such sparc architecture details), then it would be correct to reject > those shared libraries ... Where are we getting the architecture settings from? I'll pick an example I know better. Suppose a binary is built for a PowerPC 603 but it loads a shared library built for a PowerPC 7400 with Altivec. The check would fail in the way Joel described if we're getting the architecture from the input file, but this is a valid operation. If we're getting it from the target, then we've got the wrong architecture if PowerPC 7400 binaries were supported - clearly it isn't a 603. But not all targets report the architecture. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery