Re: [PATCH] more adjustments to elf_find_function

[Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>]

Hi Jan,

> > 1) It does not apply the same adjustment to arm_elf_find_function in 
> > elf32-arm.c.
>
>
> That could be easily addressed; I wonder, however, why the same
> (generic) code exists in two places. 

Because I was lazy...


> I didn't even know there's a second
> instance of it, and for such arch-specific files I'd view this as a task
> the maintainers of the arch would have to carry out (after all it must
> have been them to decide the duplicate this and perhaps a lot more
> functionality).

True - although I think that it might be nicer if we allowed some hooks 
to be created to insert into the generic find_function routine and then 
there would be no need for a target specific version.


> I think it's right (at least I intended it to behave exactly as you
> describe it). In that place I can't judge about the meaning of symbols
> between STT_LOPROC and STT_HIPROC anyway, so considering them 'normal'
> symbols seemed more obvious to me. If an arch indeed has a symbol type
> that needs to be ignored here, then a new hook would be needed.
> In any case the state change can't be at the end of the STT_FUNC case:
> STT_OBJECT and STT_TLS (as well as any future types) ones would then be
> mis-treated, and especially wrt. future extensions I used the assumption
> that those (see the relatively new STT_TLS) would be 'normal' rather
> than 'special' in the sense used here.

OK then, in which case I have no further objections to the patch, so 
please check it in.

Cheers
  Nick