RE: [RFC] Add support for printing pdata for x86_64 pe coff objects

["Pierre Muller" <pierre dot muller at ics-cnrs dot unistra dot fr>]

Hi Nick,

  The new version seems to work as expected.
The content of .xdata is displayed both for executable and for objects.

  Comparison of 
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-objdump.exe --version
GNU objdump (GNU Binutils) 2.24.51.20140411
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms of
the GNU General Public License version 3 or (at your option) any later
version.
This program has absolutely no warranty.

and current objdump compiled for  x86_64-w64-mingw32
reveals only one change, but I don't know if this is really related to 
your recent patch:

$ ./objdump.exe -p ./objdump.exe  > objdump.test-git
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-objdump.exe -p ./objdump.exe  > objdump.test64
$ diff objdump.test64 objdump.test-git
10,11c10
< Time/Date             Sat Mar  8 10:44:01 1902
< Magic                 020b    (PE32+)
---
> Time/Date             (null)Magic                     020b    (PE32+)

The missing newline, is explained by the comment below:

2719      /* ctime implies '\n'.  */
2720      {
2721        time_t t = pe->coff.timestamp;
2722        fprintf (file, "\nTime/Date\t\t%s", ctime (&t));
2723      }
2724
but I don't know why t returns "(null)"
(gdb) ptyp t
type = long long
(gdb) p /x t
$4 = 0xffffffff806f8040

Is this some magical number?

Anyway, thanks for committing my patch!

Pierre Muller

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Nicholas Clifton [mailto:nickc@redhat.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 24 décembre 2014 11:10
> À : Pierre Muller; binutils@sourceware.org
> Objet : Re: [RFC] Add support for printing pdata for x86_64 pe coff
> objects
> 
> Hi Pierre,
> 
> >   But even after moving the check, I still get only part
> > of unwind code, while most is simply replaced by
> > "Too many unwind codes ("...
> > messages.
> 
> This was due to the check for corrupt unwind information being
> incorrect.  It was including the "addr" value twice, when it should
> have
> been only once.  I have now corrected this and checked in your patch.
> Please could you have a look just to make sure that I did not miss
> anything.
> 
> Cheers
>    Nick