Re: RFC: Verify AT_ENTRY before using it

Daniel Jacobowitz
2010-03-08T22:06:43Z

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 09:04:28PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> The patch below combines (a)+(c)+(b) (in this order). It also implements
> a warning on non-matching exec_bfd vs. target memory. (d) is still left as
> applicable independent patch for approval.

Thanks for working on this. I agree with all of it except the
warnings. Since there's no other working way to accomplish (d)
today, and I have a use case for that which won't go away, I don't
think it's appropriate to warn.

Note, if the program headers matched but the alignment was not page
aligned, that would be a different case: that seems worth warning
about. I don't know what that would mean. Is it a case you've
encountered?

Without the warnings, this is OK to check in. If you want the
warnings, we should discuss it a little more.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery