Re: [RFA] PATCH: finding a function with address

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>]

Eli,
Yes, go ahead.

(it took me a while to follow the section vs. bfd_section naming of
formal parameters!) Yes bfd_section can be NULL. Other places in gdb
check it like this: if (SYMBOL_BFD_SECTION (symbol)). I don't care
which way you do it.


Thanks 
Elena


Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > I wrote:
 > 
 > > Here's the scoop: many debug formats, including COFF, put NULL into
 > > SYMBOL_BFD_SECTION, see `prim_record_minimal_symbol' and all its
 > > callers.  This makes `lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc_section' reject all
 > > symbols it finds, and come up empty handed.
 > > 
 > > Can someone who knows his/her way inside minsyms.c please suggest how
 > > to fix this?  It seems that in its current shape,
 > > `lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc_section' is too harsh to quite a few
 > > platforms, so I think we'd better change that.  Would an additional
 > > test for SYMBOL_BFD_SECTION being non-NULL be okay, for example?
 > 
 > Well, since no one replied, I'm now turning this into RFA ;-)
 > 
 > The following patch allows targets where SYMBOL_BFD_SECTION is NULL,
 > in particular targets which use COFF debug info, to use "info symbol"
 > as advertised.
 > 
 > Okay to commit?
 > 
 > 2001-02-07  Eli Zaretskii  <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
 > 
 > 	* minsyms.c (lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc_section): Don't skip
 > 	symbols whose SYMBOL_BFD_SECTION is NULL.
 > 
 > --- gdb/minsyms.c~0	Fri Dec 15 03:01:48 2000
 > +++ gdb/minsyms.c	Wed Feb  7 20:29:38 2001
 > @@ -482,6 +482,10 @@ lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc_section (COR
 >  	      /* This is the new code that distinguishes it from the old function */
 >  	      if (section)
 >  		while (hi >= 0
 > +		       /* Some types of debug info, such as COFF,
 > +			  don't fill the bfd_section member, so don't
 > +			  throw away symbols on those platforms.  */
 > +		       && SYMBOL_BFD_SECTION (&msymbol[hi]) != NULL
 >  		       && SYMBOL_BFD_SECTION (&msymbol[hi]) != section)
 >  		  --hi;
 >  
 >