> Am 23.02.2016 um 23:16 schrieb Torsten Polle : > > >> Am 23.02.2016 um 17:46 schrieb Mark Wielaard : >> >> On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 22:45 +0100, Torsten Polle wrote: >>> the principle idea of your patch works. But I had to rewrite it to >>> really work in my environment. Could you please have a look at my >>> proposal? Would something like that be acceptable? >> >> Could you give an example of what didn't work? >> You cast both debug_frame_off and dwbias to uint32_t before >> substracting. Is that really necessary/correct? Both are Dwarf_Addrs >> which are always uint64_t. And we care about the difference here. > > In my case debug_frame_off is larger than dwbias. If for instance debug_frame_off is 0 and dwbias is -1, the result is -1. As the arithmethics on the 64bit host is unsigned, the result is 0xffffffffffffffff in hex notation and 18446744073709551615 in decimal notation. As stap-symbols.h is used for the target, the values are too large for the 32bit wide unsigned int, which is the data type for the field sec_load_offset. Therefore the compiler complains. The type cast to uint32_t forces the host compiler to use only a 32bit value. Therefore the result is 0xffffffff (4294967295). At least that is what happens on my host. I need the ā€žuā€œ because even 4294967295 is considered to be too large. > >>> I would like to double check in my environment if we could fall back to the hex notation again. >> >> Isn't it simpler and consistent to just always use decimal in this case? >> There should at least be a comment why we use a different notation for >> elf32 vs elf64 targets. > > I would go for a consistent notation. Personally, I prefer the hex notation for the addresses. I hope to be able to check whether the hex notation with casts works tomorrow and get back to you. > > Regards, > Torsten Mark, Please find a new version of the patch attached. I changed the patch to use hexadecimal numbers consistently. Kind Regards, Torsten