From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1395 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2018 14:44:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 1382 invoked by uid 89); 19 Sep 2018 14:44:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:44:23 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w8JEiG6L004137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:44:21 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3453F1E5A4; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:44:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330311E186; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:44:15 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:44:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: Tom Tromey Cc: Joel Brobecker , Xavier Roirand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 2/5] Darwin: Handle unrelocated dyld. In-Reply-To: <87fty5r1ud.fsf@tromey.com> References: <1534932677-9496-1-git-send-email-roirand@adacore.com> <1534932677-9496-3-git-send-email-roirand@adacore.com> <18e995c1bee8c82df212dd431136d259@polymtl.ca> <87lg7ysdpb.fsf@tromey.com> <20180919134057.GN19172@adacore.com> <87fty5r1ud.fsf@tromey.com> Message-ID: <8f17f90607d350f19c4a36346c4e1acb@polymtl.ca> X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00690.txt.bz2 On 2018-09-19 10:36, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: > >>> + (Apparently dyld doesn't need to relocate itself on x86-64 darwin, >>> + but don't assume that). > > Joel> I am wondering whether the difference in what you are seeing > Joel> might be explained by a difference in MacOS X version; if I were > Joel> to guess, I would say that Xavier was running on Mac OS X Sierra. > Joel> What version were you running on? > > High Sierra. > > Joel> Or perhaps the intent is to be extra careful meaning that while > Joel> today the relocation is not necessary, we still handle it so that > Joel> it continues working the day it becomes so? > > I couldn't really say, I just concluded what I did based on the mention > of the specific architecture there. > > Joel> If the comment above is confusing, I would vote for removing it. > > I think we need more information. > > If we remove the comment because we think it is untrue, then Simon's > original critique of the patch -- that there is no reason for a second > solib breakpoint -- seems correct. And in this case we should remove a > chunk of the patch. > > Based on my testing thus far, this would be fine. But I don't know > what > testing Xavier and Tristan did, or with what architectures. > > Also my testing hasn't been exactly exhaustive. I just try simple > things because today those break. > > Now, for my purposes, it would be fine to land the more minimal patch. > That would not preclude adding this code back later. If that seems ok, > I'm happy to do it. I'd like to get this working so I can make some > progress on other patches, and anyway un-break the Mac port. > > Joel> That makes me realize (again) that, for MacOS X, we should be > more > Joel> proactive at specificying which version a patch we are submitting > Joel> was tested on, and some information about which versions of MacOS > X > Joel> a given patch helps. A fair amount of work that Tristan did once > Joel> the initial port was created was to adapt it to subsequent > versions > Joel> of Darwin. Nearly every new version of Darwin introduced its new > Joel> set of changes requiring additional adaptations. > > Wholly agreed. > > Tom I would vote for only checking in the code you know is necessary for now, otherwise it will just be more confusing in the future, trying to figure out what is needed and what isn't. Simon