From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12545 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2007 21:16:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 12532 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2007 21:16:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:16:09 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-5-89.inter.net.il [80.230.5.89]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id DVX69589 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:16:05 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:16:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: "Ulrich Weigand" CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200710142013.l9EKDNaT007511@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> (uweigand@de.ibm.com) Subject: Re: [rfc/rft] [3/3] Remove stabs target macros: SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200710142013.l9EKDNaT007511@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00374.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:13:23 +0200 (CEST) > From: "Ulrich Weigand" > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > Would the following wording for the SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING change > be OK? Yes, but... > +In this case, @value{GDBN} assumes two things: > + > +@itemize @bullet > +@item > +@code{N_FUN} stabs have an address of zero. Instead, you should find the > +addresses where the function starts by taking the function name from the > +stab, and then looking that up in the minsyms (the linker/assembler symbol > +table). In other words, the stab has the name, and the linker/assembler > +symbol table is the only place that carries the address. I'm confused by the "Instead" thing: instead of what? instead of using the (otherwise non-zero) address of N_FUN? Otherwise, it looks okay. Thanks.