From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26771 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2011 21:55:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 26763 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2011 21:55:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-iy0-f169.google.com) (209.85.210.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:55:45 +0000 Received: by iyi20 with SMTP id 20so2963234iyi.0 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:55:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.178.137 with SMTP id bm9mr3606586icb.41.1297979743893; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.239.10 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:55:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20110217035721.GZ7651@bubble.grove.modra.org> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bfd_get_section_size() returns zero? From: Reid Linnemann To: Reid Linnemann , binutils@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Reid Linnemann wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >> Your most likely problem is that bfd headers don't match the bfd >> library you are linking/running against. >> >> -- >> Alan Modra >> Australia Development Lab, IBM >> > > I'm fairly certain that's not the case. If it were I would still > expect bfd_get_section_size() to return a valid value since libbfd > would internally agree on the structure of the asection record. Would > you agree? > > Is it generally accepted that fetching a section with > bfd_get_section_by_name() will always yield an asection with size > information? Or can lbbfd perform a "lazy load" that needs > supplementary actions to fetch all information for the section? And > what would those supplementary actions be? > > Thanks for your assistance, > Reid > After enough rummaging around I found this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529028 Basically the bfd.h header was not matching the ABI, as was suspected.