From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12900 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2006 20:12:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 12851 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2006 20:12:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:12:12 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GI9wM-0007Yl-7T; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:12:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: dits365@gmail.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: What exactly does "info sharedlibrary" command show? Message-ID: <20060829201206.GA28907@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , dits365@gmail.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20060829123954.GB12955@nevyn.them.org> <200608291914.k7TJEOPY016721@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060829192758.GA27571@nevyn.them.org> <200608292005.k7TK5M2q021703@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200608292005.k7TK5M2q021703@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00225.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:05:22PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > It seems to me that "info shared" ought to say this library is mapped > > at 0x2aaaaabc3000 - 0x2aaaaaddfb000, or at least 0x2aaaaabc3000 > > to 0x2aaaaace4000. The latter is more portably reliable, some > > platforms separate the segments at relocation time, but SysV ones > > of course do not. > > The first approach would lead to much confusion since it would lead to > seemingly overlapping shared libraries on OpenBSD/i386. The latter > approach is better in that sense. Right. As I said, I knew that there were systems where you were limited to the first segment for this purpose, though I didn't know W^X used this. > > Right now we say it occupies 0x00002aaaaabdf2d0 to 0x00002aaaaacc1a10. > > I like this though, since I mostly search the list for code addresses. Really? Even if I'm searching for code addresses, I dislike this, because it has more noise and fewer significant bits. Given this I have a hard time finding anything visually: 0x00002aaaaabd6910 0x00002aaaaabf1e58 Yes /lib/libreadline.so.5 0x00002aaaaad20ef0 0x00002aaaaad43cc8 Yes /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 0x00002aaaaae61dd0 0x00002aaaaaea22b8 Yes /lib/libm.so.6 0x00002aaaaafe2000 0x00002aaaaafe2978 Yes /lib/libdl.so.2 0x00002aaaab1002d0 0x00002aaaab1e2a10 Yes /lib/libc.so.6 0x00002aaaaaaaba80 0x00002aaaaaabc857 Yes /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 0x00002aaaab50a8e0 0x00002aaaab50dce8 Yes /lib/libthread_db.so.1 I find this much easier: 0x00002aaaaabd6000 0x00002aaaaabf2000 Yes /lib/libreadline.so.5 0x00002aaaaad20000 0x00002aaaaad44000 Yes /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 0x00002aaaaae61000 0x00002aaaaaea3000 Yes /lib/libm.so.6 0x00002aaaaafe2000 0x00002aaaaafe3000 Yes /lib/libdl.so.2 0x00002aaaab100000 0x00002aaaab1e3000 Yes /lib/libc.so.6 0x00002aaaaaaab000 0x00002aaaaaabd000 Yes /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 0x00002aaaab50a000 0x00002aaaab50e000 Yes /lib/libthread_db.so.1 But, it's not a big deal. If you actually prefer the way it is now, I guess I'll leave it alone after all. > True. Somehow we should make the load address of a shared library > available. Should we use segments in "info files" when available? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery