From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9786 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2002 17:58:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9759 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2002 17:58:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2002 17:58:51 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11779; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CC59E0A.D9572914@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:58:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner CC: "David S. Miller" , gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Kill SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING (was Re: multi-arch TODO) References: <20020422.040949.16307644.davem@redhat.com> <1020422152449.ZM1373@localhost.localdomain> <20020423.030048.41805003.davem@redhat.com> <1020423164342.ZM9027@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00859.txt.bz2 Kevin Buettner wrote: > > On Apr 23, 3:00am, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > Why don't all Linux targets define this? Do some binutils ports > > > perform this optimization and others not? Or was there some bug > > > in N_FUN/N_SO stabs in binutils and/or gcc that this is papering > > > around? kevinb@cyghat.com is the one who added this to powerpc > > > and i386 Linux. > > > > I haven't given it a lot of thought recently, but my opinion is that > > the SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING code ought to be enabled everywhere. > > The only downside that I can think of is that we lose the ability > > to put a symbol at address 0. > > > > Sounds find to me, how about this patch? > > > > 2002-04-23 David S. Miller > > > > * config/i386/tm-i386sol2.h, config/i386/tm-linux.h, > > config/powerpc/tm-linux.h, config/powerpc/tm-ppc-eabi.h, > > config/sparc/tm-sun4sol2.h (SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING): Kill. > > * dbxread.c, elfread.c, minsyms.c, mdebugread.c, symmisc.c, > > symtab.h (whole file): Act as if SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING was > > always defined, kill ifdefs. > > Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. It looks okay to me, but it > needs to be carefully considered and approved (or not) by the symtab > maintainers. > > As noted earlier, the downside is that we lose the ability to put a > symbol at address 0. This doesn't pose a problem for operating > systems which'll never map part of the program at address 0, but there > may be some embedded environments for which this is a concern. Replace "may be" with "almost certainly are".