[patch] Resolve ppc64 func descriptors as .func (via .opd)

Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat.com
Tue Dec 11 21:11:11 UTC 2012


On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:59:42 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> But you haven't convinced me that we need to mangle the symbol
> or the return string. Please just keep it simple.

Yes, this is what I try to do.  BFD is proven to work and also one stays safe
when user interchangeably uses binutils<->elfutils input/output.


> but mangling the symbol name/return string shouldn't be part of it.

This would break the ppc64 ABI, I cannot do that as I have some professional
responsibility.


What is the next step?

(1) Submit an approval request to IBM as I have proposed in:
    https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/elfutils-devel/2012-December/002824.html
    Not sure how do you see that but IMNSHO they will say ".funcname".

(2) Discuss how to map name -> addr for "funcname"
    (when there is no ".funcname") without writing such implementation.

(3) Discuss how to map name -> addr for "funcname"
    (when there is no ".funcname") after I write the implementation.

If we return "funcname" I really do not understand how it can work.
"funcname" -> addr needs to report the function descriptor.
But then we return name which does not map back to the address for which we
reported the name.


Thanks,
Jan


More information about the elfutils-devel mailing list