From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15784 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2010 20:05:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 15772 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2010 20:05:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:05:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 19142 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2010 20:05:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 11 Feb 2010 20:05:13 -0000 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Sanity check PIE displacement (like the PIC one) Message-ID: <20100211200506.GA24110@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20100201012004.GA6015@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:43:00PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: > > Thanks for pinging this patch. > > Jan> The current PIC message being printed "all the time" is: > Jan> warning: .dynamic section for "/lib64/librt-2.11.1.so" is not at the expected address > Jan> warning: difference appears to be caused by prelink, adjusting expectations > [...] > Jan> I do not find the current PIC message too useful (moreover without > Jan> any offset printed). Therefore I am open to removing both the PIC > Jan> (and new PIE) messages when the offset is successfuly considered as > Jan> valid. > > I don't find that PIC message particularly useful, either. > Is there some situation where that information is helpful? > If not, then IMO we should remove it. Under what circumstances would you remove it? I'd favor removing the former warning when the second one would be printed, but not otherwise. The first message is a real life-saver. It triggers when you have the wrong C library when loading a core file or using a sysroot. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery