This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [Mips}Using DT tags for handling local ifuncs
- From: Jack Carter <Jack dot Carter at imgtec dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Doug Gilmore <Doug dot Gilmore at imgtec dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:26:35 +0000
- Subject: RE: [Mips}Using DT tags for handling local ifuncs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <4CEFBC1BE64A8048869F799EF2D2EEEE4C6DDC0F at BADAG02 dot ba dot imgtec dot org> <87r49p9dit dot fsf at talisman dot default>,<alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1312092333190 dot 19368 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk>
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 [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 3:41 PM
To: Richard Sandiford
Cc: Jack Carter; email@example.com; 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