This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: [Mips}Using DT tags for handling local ifuncs

Yes gdb needs to change a little, but that is not really the issue. The gdb change is relatively small.

The question is why do it if benefits in reality no one as I suspect will be the case?
Where is the bang for the buck?

That said, I am assuming I will have to do it and will make it work, but I don't see why really. 


From: Maciej W. Rozycki []
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 3:41 PM
To: Richard Sandiford
Cc: Jack Carter;; Doug Gilmore
Subject: Re: [Mips}Using DT tags for handling local ifuncs

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> > This is not to say that it cannot be done, but is it worth the bang
> > for the buck? How many debuggers, simulators, object dumpers am I
> > going to mess up making a change that few will benefit from?
> Debuggers shouldn't care.  At least I don't think GDB does.

 GDB has explicit ifunc support for making manual calls to such functions,
see stuff around elf_gnu_ifunc_fns in gdb/elfread.c; I'm not sure offhand
whether it needs to know details discussed here though, I suggest


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]