RFC: Adding an extra field to Elf_Internal_Sym
H.J. Lu
hjl.tools@gmail.com
Tue Nov 30 21:45:00 GMT 2010
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Tue Nov 30 21:45:00 GMT 2010
- Previous message (by thread): RFC: Adding an extra field to Elf_Internal_Sym
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH MIPS][LS3A] Add Loongson3A mul/div instructions
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@linaro.org> wrote: > Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes: >> On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 17:00 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes: >>> > I think your argument about the risk of externally exposing internal >>> > data is persuasive. Other than that, I have no objection to either >>> > approach provided it doesn't change anything in the written object file. >>> >>> OK, thanks. >>> >>> > I think there's perhaps also an argument for doing something along these >>> > lines for the T bit in function symbols. At present the use of >>> > STT_THUMB_FUNC internally causes tools like nm to incorrectly list Thumb >>> > function symbols. >>> >>> Do you mean keeping the T bit in the symbol value, rather than masking >>> it out? >>> >>> I'd originally rejected that because it seemed to make things more >>> complicated. I hadn't realised "nm" got things wrong though. If we do >>> want things like "nm" to print the in-object symbol value, then maybe we >>> should go that way and add helper functions to mask out the T bit when >>> needed. >> >> No, I was thinking of moving it to a different field (attribute) rather >> than changing the type of the symbol (so all function symbols are then >> STT_FUNC). >> >> There certainly is an argument that nm should use the raw value field of >> a symbol, but I'm more concerned at present that we get output such as >> >> sym |00000000| T |<processor specific>: 13| | |.text >> >> Which is misleading on ARM EABI as there is no such type... > > Ah, yeah, hadn't thought of trying sysv mode. That does seem a > convincing argument against making up a new internal-only symbol type > for Thumb STT_GNU_IFUNCs. It looks like it is a choice between the new > Elf_Interanl_Sym field (which fixes the output above) and keeping the T > bit in the raw symbol value. > > Does anyone have any feel for how disruptive it would be for users > if we make nm print odd values? I have found nm pretty much useless on some ELF symbols. For example, nm doesn't report value for ELF COMMON symbols. -- H.J.
- Previous message (by thread): RFC: Adding an extra field to Elf_Internal_Sym
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH MIPS][LS3A] Add Loongson3A mul/div instructions
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list