Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] gdb/python: add Corefile.mapped_files method

[Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com>]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:

Andrew>   + Build-id is not present in the core file, GDB will return None for
Andrew>     the build-id.

Andrew> Of these two I suspect the second; for a period of time the GNU linker
Andrew> was ... changed ... such that it no longer placed the build-id within
Andrew> the first page of a generated ELF, as a result, the Linux kernel would
Andrew> not include the build-id in core dumps.

Andrew> We can check for the second case using:

Andrew>   readelf -WS /lib64/libc.so.6 | grep build-id

Andrew> The output will be something like:

Andrew>   [ 2] .note.gnu.build-id NOTE            0000000000000370 000370 000024 00   A  0   0  4

Andrew> It's the '000370' column we're interested in.  If this value is greater
Andrew> than a page size, then GDB isn't going to be able to find the build-id.

I have a question about this work.

There's an internal AdaCore test that creates a core file, then uses
'file' on a different executable and 'core' to check if a warning is
issued.

gdb 16 on this test does:

(gdb) core core
warning: core file may not match specified executable file.
[...]

However with git master we don't get that.

Now, the executables in question do have build ids:

bapiya. readelf -WS call_crash|grep build-id
  [ 2] .note.gnu.build-id NOTE            0000000000000390 000390 000024 00   A  0   0  4
bapiya. readelf -WS crash|grep build-id
  [ 2] .note.gnu.build-id NOTE            0000000000000390 000390 000024 00   A  0   0  4

... and I verified the the IDs are actually different.

I'm not really sure how to find the relevant page size, per your comment
above.

I can't readily tell if the core file has an ID.  gdb thinks there
isn't, using the command from py-corefile.py.

That by itself seems a little weird but I am wondering if the warning
should appear anyway, at least in this case, because the core file
records it was created by 'crash' but the current file has a different
base name ("call_crash").

IOW, is the lack of a warning in this case now intentional?

And, how can I understand why the ID isn't in the core?
I'm having some trouble figuring out which 'ld' the compiler is invoking.

Tom