This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] gdb_bfd_count_sections snafu
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:01:09 -0600
- Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb_bfd_count_sections snafu
- References: <yjt2ehe9r31a dot fsf at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com>
>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <dje@google.com> writes:
Doug> HOWEVER, objfile->num_sections is computed with bfd_count_sections
Doug> not gdb_bfd_count_sections.
Thanks for finding this.
Doug> This patch does clean up one thing: AFAICT when syms_from_objfile_1
Doug> is passed NULL for both addrs and offsets, there's no point in
Doug> building local_addr to have more than one entry (zero would be fine
Doug> too I think but space needs to be allocated for at least one entry).
Doug> if (! addrs && ! offsets)
Doug> {
Doug> - local_addr
Doug> - = alloc_section_addr_info (bfd_count_sections (objfile->obfd));
Doug> + local_addr = alloc_section_addr_info (1);
Doug> make_cleanup (xfree, local_addr);
Doug> addrs = local_addr;
Doug> }
Yeah, I believe we agreed in the original series that at least 1 was
required. Otherwise it makes alloc_section_addr_info "weird"; and the
downside of the current approach is just allocating a slightly larger
object in some situations.
Doug> Index: solib-target.c
Doug> ===================================================================
Doug> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/solib-target.c,v
Doug> retrieving revision 1.28
Doug> diff -u -p -r1.28 solib-target.c
Doug> --- solib-target.c 8 Apr 2013 20:04:42 -0000 1.28
Doug> +++ solib-target.c 17 Apr 2013 07:07:07 -0000
Doug> @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ solib_target_relocate_section_addresses
Doug> it any earlier, since we need to open the file first. */
Doug> if (so->lm_info->offsets == NULL)
Doug> {
Doug> - int num_sections = bfd_count_sections (so->abfd);
Doug> + int num_sections = gdb_bfd_count_sections (so->abfd);
I'm not certain that this one is needed.
It seems harmless though.
The rest looks good.
I'm going to be off most of next week but I will try to remember to look
into this again when I return.
Tom