This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: Adding an extra field to Elf_Internal_Sym
Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
> I think your argument about the risk of externally exposing internal
> data is persuasive. Other than that, I have no objection to either
> approach provided it doesn't change anything in the written object file.
OK, thanks.
> I think there's perhaps also an argument for doing something along these
> lines for the T bit in function symbols. At present the use of
> STT_THUMB_FUNC internally causes tools like nm to incorrectly list Thumb
> function symbols.
Do you mean keeping the T bit in the symbol value, rather than masking
it out?
I'd originally rejected that because it seemed to make things more
complicated. I hadn't realised "nm" got things wrong though. If we do
want things like "nm" to print the in-object symbol value, then maybe we
should go that way and add helper functions to mask out the T bit when
needed.
Richard