* 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).