On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:21:55AM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
libdwfl/
2013-07-22 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com>
* core-file.c (clear_r_debug_info): Close also ELF and FD.
(dwfl_core_file_report): Call __libdwfl_report_elf for
R_DEBUG_INFO.MODULE.
The following two are in * dwfl_report_elf.c:
(__libdwfl_elf_address_range): New function from code of ...
(__libdwfl_report_elf): ... this function. Call it.
* dwfl_segment_report_module.c: Include unistd.h.
(dwfl_segment_report_module): Use basename for MODULE->NAME.
Clear MODULE if it has no build-id and we have segment with build-id.
Ignore this segment only if MODULE still contains valid ELF.
* libdwflP.h (__libdwfl_elf_address_range): New declaration.
(struct r_debug_info_module): New fields fd, elf, l_addr, start, end
and disk_file_has_build_id.
(dwfl_link_map_report): Extend the comment.
* link_map.c (report_r_debug): Extend the comment. Always fill in new
r_debug_info_module. Initialize also the new r_debug_info_module
fields. Remove one FIXME comment. Call __libdwfl_elf_address_range
instead of __libdwfl_report_elf when R_DEBUG_INFO is not NULL.
Looks OK to me, but I haven't tried it.
tests/
2013-07-22 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com>
* run-unstrip-n.sh (test-core.*): Ignore libc.so.6 entry and order of
the entries.
I understand why you don't want to rely on the order of the entries.
But why ignore the libc entry?
Thanks,
Mark