From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10424 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2010 19:43:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 10219 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2010 19:43:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:43:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1BJh2bo024065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:43:02 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1BJh1xY001995; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:43:01 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1BJh06t027775; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:43:00 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 42831378261; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:43:00 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Sanity check PIE displacement (like the PIC one) References: <20100201012004.GA6015@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20100201012004.GA6015@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Mon, 1 Feb 2010 02:20:04 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00298.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Thanks for pinging this patch. Jan> The current PIC message being printed "all the time" is: Jan> warning: .dynamic section for "/lib64/librt-2.11.1.so" is not at the expected address Jan> warning: difference appears to be caused by prelink, adjusting expectations [...] Jan> I do not find the current PIC message too useful (moreover without Jan> any offset printed). Therefore I am open to removing both the PIC Jan> (and new PIE) messages when the offset is successfuly considered as Jan> valid. I don't find that PIC message particularly useful, either. Is there some situation where that information is helpful? If not, then IMO we should remove it. Jan> 2010-02-01 Jan Kratochvil Jan> * solib-svr4.c (LM_ADDR_CHECK): Move variable align to a more inner Jan> block. New variable minpagesize, set it for ELF ABFDs. New comment on Jan> PPC-aware condition. Extend the condition using MINPAGESIZE. Jan> (svr4_exec_displacement): New variable retval. Sanity check it. Most of it seems reasonable to me. Jan> + warning (_("Using PIE (Position Independent Executable) displacement %s " Jan> + "for \"%s\""), Jan> + paddress (target_gdbarch, retval), bfd_get_filename (exec_bfd)); This is printed unconditionally. But again, when would it matter to the user? If it isn't directly informative, I think we should prefer to be silent. If it is needed in some obscure situation, maybe we can add an equally obscure command to print it. What do you think? Tom