From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11394 invoked by alias); 1 May 2009 00:07:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 11386 invoked by uid 22791); 1 May 2009 00:07:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from saturn.robustserver.com (HELO saturn.robustserver.com) (75.126.93.128) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 May 2009 00:07:15 +0000 Received: from [98.221.23.85] (helo=[192.168.10.6]) by saturn.robustserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LzgHR-0008L4-LQ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:07:05 -0400 Message-ID: <49FA3D29.6010903@apogeect.com> Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 00:07:00 -0000 From: Frank Middleton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081223 Thunderbird/3.0b1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Paul Pluzhnikov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix a buglet in elfread.c References: <20090430164806.7DED819C4E1@localhost> <20090430215422.GE10734@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20090430215422.GE10734@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 On 04/30/09 17:54, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> 2009-04-30 Paul Pluzhnikov >> >> * elfread.c (elf_symtab_read): Don't assume .data and .rodata >> are present. > > Looks good to me. Please go ahead and apply. > > I tested this patch on sparc-solaris 2.8 with -gstabs+, since this > seems to be related to stabs. I don't think we can really test > this part of the code with a GCC compiler, but perhaps it's is > still exercised throught the loading of some of the Solaris shared > libraries. We did our best, and we had 2 pairs of eyes looking at it, > so it should be fine. FWIW this wasn't a problem until at or after Solaris 10 (SunOS 5.10), so your testing would presumably show that this patch didn't break anything. I've been using the patched version all day on SunOS 5.11 (snv103) and it seems to be working perfectly, so it doesn't seem like anything got broken and it certainly seems fixed. Thanks again!