From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 96721 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2015 16:43:17 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 96712 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2015 16:43:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:43:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1QGhD2D009281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:43:14 -0500 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net ([10.40.204.17]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1QGh9NN000396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:43:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:43:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Subject: [commit] [patchv2] compile: Fix GNU-IFUNC funcs called from injected code Message-ID: <20150226164309.GA3251@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20150224190720.GA32497@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20150224200237.GA1746@host1.jankratochvil.net> <54EF409C.9090102@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54EF409C.9090102@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00767.txt.bz2 On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:49:48 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > I think we could probably avoid the extra infcall done > within gnu_ifunc_resolve_addr if we're going to be running > the generated code anyway, but it's not worth the effort > at this point. Yes; it would also need hacking in the GCC part. > Could you move these inside the prefix too, so that if they > fail for some reason, we get distinct test messages from > the nodebug case? Done. Checked in: 081a1c2cede38dfb837e3d89539416fd836be4fe Thanks, Jan