This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: Use .plt section sh_entsize instead of GET_PLT_ENTRY_SIZE
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, "GDB" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:57:35 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: Use .plt section sh_entsize instead of GET_PLT_ENTRY_SIZE
- References: <CAMe9rOp9JdK96fXHL-ViJxMh371kgxONgYTHeXrYnBfm4AgdjQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 09.08.13 at 19:16, "H.J. Lu" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> We need to increase x86-64 PLT entry size to 32 bytes to
> support Intel MPX. But elf_x86_64_plt_sym_val uses the
> hardcoded PLT entry size and disassembler can't deal
> with a different PLT entry size. For x86-64, PLT entry size
> is the same as .plt section sh_entsize. We can use it instead.
> This assumes .sh_entsize is set correctly. Both ld and gold
> handle it properly. Will this change cause any problems?
Wasn't your plan to support a mixture of 16- and 32-byte
entries? In which case considering the entry size to be 16
would remain to be correct?