* bad patch - also not on list?
@ 2023-11-20 6:22 Tom Tromey
2023-11-20 14:32 ` Nick Clifton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-11-20 6:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils; +Cc: Vsevolod Alekseyev
I noticed that this commit:
commit b05efa39b47995db08c5537e4504271c8727702a
Author: Vsevolod Alekseyev <sevaa@sprynet.com>
Date: Fri Nov 10 15:26:48 2023 +0000
readelf..debug-dump=loc displays bogus base addresses
PR 30880
* dwarf.c (read_and_display_attr_value): Fix loclist handling. (display_loclists_list): Likewise.
... removes several hunks from display_gdb_index, causing readelf to be
incapable of reading v9 indices.
I think this was probably done in error. However, I also could not find
this patch on the mailing list. So, I wonder what's going in there.
I recommend reverting it. However at the very least the regression
ought to be fixed.
thanks,
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: bad patch - also not on list?
2023-11-20 6:22 bad patch - also not on list? Tom Tromey
@ 2023-11-20 14:32 ` Nick Clifton
2023-11-20 14:55 ` Vsevolod Alekseyev
2023-11-20 15:00 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nick Clifton @ 2023-11-20 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey, binutils; +Cc: Vsevolod Alekseyev
Hi Tom,
> I noticed that this commit:
>
> commit b05efa39b47995db08c5537e4504271c8727702a
> ... removes several hunks from display_gdb_index, causing readelf to be
> incapable of reading v9 indices.
Ah, I did notice that and wonder.
> I think this was probably done in error.
I think so. It looks like it might be just one delta that is causing
the problem:
@@ -10934,33 +10788,6 @@ display_gdb_index (struct dwarf_section *section,
}
}
- if (version >= 9)
- {
- printf (_("\nShortcut table:\n"));
-
- if (shortcut_table_offset + 8 > constant_pool_offset)
- {
- warn (_("Corrupt shortcut table in the %s section.\n"), section->name);
- return 0;
- }
-
- uint32_t lang = byte_get_little_endian (shortcut_table, 4);
- printf (_("Language of main: "));
- display_lang (lang);
- printf ("\n");
-
- uint32_t name_offset = byte_get_little_endian (shortcut_table + 4, 4);
- printf (_("Name of main: "));
- if (name_offset >= section->size - constant_pool_offset)
- {
- printf (_("<corrupt offset: %x>\n"), name_offset);
- warn (_("Corrupt name offset of 0x%x found for name of main\n"),
- name_offset);
- }
- else
- printf ("%s\n", constant_pool + name_offset);
- }
-
return 1;
}
If that code is restored, does v9 functionality then return ?
> However, I also could not find
> this patch on the mailing list.
It was posted to the PR, and I thought that I had seen it on the
mailing list too. But obviously I was wrong. Sorry about that.
Cheers
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: bad patch - also not on list?
2023-11-20 14:32 ` Nick Clifton
@ 2023-11-20 14:55 ` Vsevolod Alekseyev
2023-11-20 15:00 ` Tom Tromey
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Vsevolod Alekseyev @ 2023-11-20 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Nick Clifton', 'Tom Tromey', binutils
I don't recall removing that fragment on purpose. Could've been an artifact of working with a less than latest version. Sorry for that.
To the best of my recollection, the shortcut table had nothing to do with the issue I was trying to address.
Please feel free to revert.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 9:33 AM
To: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>; binutils@sourceware.org
Cc: Vsevolod Alekseyev <sevaa@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: bad patch - also not on list?
Hi Tom,
> I noticed that this commit:
>
> commit b05efa39b47995db08c5537e4504271c8727702a
> ... removes several hunks from display_gdb_index, causing readelf to
> be incapable of reading v9 indices.
Ah, I did notice that and wonder.
> I think this was probably done in error.
I think so. It looks like it might be just one delta that is causing the problem:
@@ -10934,33 +10788,6 @@ display_gdb_index (struct dwarf_section *section,
}
}
- if (version >= 9)
- {
- printf (_("\nShortcut table:\n"));
-
- if (shortcut_table_offset + 8 > constant_pool_offset)
- {
- warn (_("Corrupt shortcut table in the %s section.\n"), section->name);
- return 0;
- }
-
- uint32_t lang = byte_get_little_endian (shortcut_table, 4);
- printf (_("Language of main: "));
- display_lang (lang);
- printf ("\n");
-
- uint32_t name_offset = byte_get_little_endian (shortcut_table + 4, 4);
- printf (_("Name of main: "));
- if (name_offset >= section->size - constant_pool_offset)
- {
- printf (_("<corrupt offset: %x>\n"), name_offset);
- warn (_("Corrupt name offset of 0x%x found for name of main\n"),
- name_offset);
- }
- else
- printf ("%s\n", constant_pool + name_offset);
- }
-
return 1;
}
If that code is restored, does v9 functionality then return ?
> However, I also could not find
> this patch on the mailing list.
It was posted to the PR, and I thought that I had seen it on the mailing list too. But obviously I was wrong. Sorry about that.
Cheers
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: bad patch - also not on list?
2023-11-20 14:32 ` Nick Clifton
2023-11-20 14:55 ` Vsevolod Alekseyev
@ 2023-11-20 15:00 ` Tom Tromey
2023-11-20 16:09 ` Nick Clifton
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-11-20 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Clifton; +Cc: Tom Tromey, binutils, Vsevolod Alekseyev
>>>>> "Nick" == Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
Nick> I think so. It looks like it might be just one delta that is causing
Nick> the problem:
...
Nick> If that code is restored, does v9 functionality then return ?
There were several hunks affecting that function, all of them have to be
fixed. I can do it if you want.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: bad patch - also not on list?
2023-11-20 15:00 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2023-11-20 16:09 ` Nick Clifton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nick Clifton @ 2023-11-20 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: binutils, Vsevolod Alekseyev
Hi Tom,
> Nick> I think so. It looks like it might be just one delta that is causing
> Nick> the problem:
> ...
> Nick> If that code is restored, does v9 functionality then return ?
>
> There were several hunks affecting that function, all of them have to be
> fixed. I can do it if you want.
Yes - please do.
Cheers
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-11-20 16:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-11-20 6:22 bad patch - also not on list? Tom Tromey
2023-11-20 14:32 ` Nick Clifton
2023-11-20 14:55 ` Vsevolod Alekseyev
2023-11-20 15:00 ` Tom Tromey
2023-11-20 16:09 ` Nick Clifton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).