This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Relocs against unalloced sections in shared libraries
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 03:24:20PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
>
> |> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:39:08PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> |> > > From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
> |> > > Date: 10 Jan 2003 01:29:50 +0100
> |> >
> |> > > Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:
> |> > >
> |> > > > Isn't this necessary for proper handling of DWARF2 debug information?
> |> > >
> |> > > The debugger will know which bytes to relocate by looking at the
> |> > > structure while reading the debug information from a shared library.
> |> >
> |> > Hmmm. Have you asked the GDB people about this? I believe the
> |> > conclusion was that it kind-of does this now, and it kind-of works,
> |> > but in the long run it should be looking at the relocations.
> |>
> |> Yes. I don't know if it's possible to reproduce the situation in a
> |> shared library on PPC (I haven't tried) but there are ET_REL objects
> |> on PPC that _can not_ be debugged without properly obeying the
> |> relocation information. That's because there can be relocations
> |> against variables instead of against section symbols.
>
> We are talking about ET_DYN objects, where this is a non-issue. Of
> course, ET_REL object continue to contain the full relocation information.
Is it? Will all these relocations be resolved to section+offset? Hmm,
it appears so in practice but I can never figure out how that's
determined.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer