From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>,
GNU gABI gnu-gabi <gnu-gabi@sourceware.org>
Cc: "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Add ET_DEBUG
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 08:47:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOq+KrPUOYpGiCRm_AX+SQbfB5Skv_wCa8Um8Ch92Efudw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8a57b41ee8bbe9a8efbf3bb6d51d8c1548fc863a.camel@klomp.org>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 7:02 AM Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 23:35 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * H. J. Lu via Libc-alpha:
> >
> > > We need a way to identify "debug" info files, which appear like they
> > > are ELF files but if inspected are actually missing a lot of
> > > information and can't be properly parsed without the original DSO or
> > > executable.
> > > We propose
> > >
> > > #define ET_DEBUG 5 /* Debug information file */
> > >
> > > Consumers should skip ET_DEBUG files if they don't know how to
> > > handle them. Debuggers should process ET_DEBUG files to extract
> > > debug info.
> >
> > I would like to see a change like this.
> >
> > For background: These separate debuginfo files contain the same program
> > headers as the original object file, but all the loadable segments are
> > missing from the file (including the dynamic segment). Tools compare
> > these program headers for consistency, so we cannot change them in the
> > separate debuginfo.
> >
> > In the dynamic loader, we only have ready access to the loadable
> > segments. This means the ELF header is the only area of overlap, and
> > the information to tell the two apart has to be located there.
>
> Note that this is only true for separate debug file for ET_EXEC and
> ET_DYN ELF files. Some debug files, like stripped ET_REL ELF files,
> split-dwarf .dwo files, supplementary debug files (dwz multi files),
> don't contain any program headers. Should those also be marked ET_DEBUG
> or not? I think they should. And then the above description should
> simply say "may contain the same program headers as the associated
> (original) object file...".
>
> Cheers,
>
https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/Linux-ABI/-/merge_requests/3
--
H.J.
parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-15 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <8a57b41ee8bbe9a8efbf3bb6d51d8c1548fc863a.camel@klomp.org>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAMe9rOq+KrPUOYpGiCRm_AX+SQbfB5Skv_wCa8Um8Ch92Efudw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gnu-gabi@sourceware.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).