This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: readelf and archive
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 08 Aug 2003 22:39:03 -0700
- Subject: Re: readelf and archive
- References: <20030809000250.GA13224@lucon.org>
"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> That means it can't use any BFD functions if BFD64 is not enabled
> since BFD function prototypes will mismatch.
Good, since it shouldn't use them anyhow.
> extern bfd_size_type bfd_bread (void *, bfd_size_type, bfd *);
> extern bfd_size_type bfd_bwrite (const void *, bfd_size_type, bfd *);
> extern int bfd_seek (bfd *, file_ptr, int);
> extern ufile_ptr bfd_tell (bfd *);
>
> What is the best way to fix it? Their propotypes should be host
> specific, not target specific.
Hmmm. At first I thought that was correct, but now I'm not sure.
When reading a 64-bit object file on a 32-bit host, it seems at least
conceivable that these functions will be called with 64 bit values.
While it's true that they don't handle such values correctly now, that
by itself doesn't mean that the BFD interface should be changed to
preclude it.
> typedef long file_ptr;
> typedef unsigned long ufile_ptr;
> typedef unsigned long bfd_host_size_type;
Even if we go with using host types, this doesn't seem right--it
should be more like off_t and size_t.
> BTW, fseek/ftell work on long, not off_t.
True, but maybe BFD should use fseeko and ftello when available.
Ian