From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10021 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2014 18:18:49 -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 9987 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jul 2014 18:18:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oi0-f43.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f43.google.com) (209.85.218.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:18:45 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f43.google.com with SMTP id u20so6435527oif.2 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.70.65 with SMTP id k1mr53106906oeu.61.1406571523101; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.153.198 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140728151448.GA6644@adacore.com> References: <20140717133826.GL4888@adacore.com> <20140717182341.GM4888@adacore.com> <20140719214017.GA9087@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20140728151448.GA6644@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Fwd: GDB 7.8 update (getting closer, new pre-release) From: "H.J. Lu" To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Alan Modra , GDB , Nick Clifton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00699.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=144bed8d4d8a1bdc0067f55f2ee71c07e5594677 >> > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=cca5b8b64b3286bb96cd7a2c18232d1acea85cd9 >> > > >> > > in GDB 7.8. It properly disassembles PLT section in libc.so with >> > > IFUNC. >> > >> > Can you please have one of the binutils maintainers assess the risk >> > level of backporting these patches into 7.8? >> >> I've become a little rusty on the x86 target code but it looks OK to >> me. The simple approach that HJ has taken is quite suited to a >> release branch, as compared to redesigning x86_64 ifunc support.. >> (The latter might be preferable on mainline to avoid the reloc >> scanning, if possible, but I leave that decision to HJ.) > > Thanks, Alan. > > HJ, > > if this hasn't been ported to the branch yet, please go ahead now. > I checked them into 7.8 branch. Thanks. -- H.J.