This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc/rft] [3/3] Remove stabs target macros: SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:16:08 +0200
- Subject: Re: [rfc/rft] [3/3] Remove stabs target macros: SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
- References: <200710142013.l9EKDNaT007511@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:13:23 +0200 (CEST)
> From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> Would the following wording for the SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING change
> be OK?
Yes, but...
> +In this case, @value{GDBN} assumes two things:
> +
> +@itemize @bullet
> +@item
> +@code{N_FUN} stabs have an address of zero. Instead, you should find the
> +addresses where the function starts by taking the function name from the
> +stab, and then looking that up in the minsyms (the linker/assembler symbol
> +table). In other words, the stab has the name, and the linker/assembler
> +symbol table is the only place that carries the address.
I'm confused by the "Instead" thing: instead of what? instead of using
the (otherwise non-zero) address of N_FUN?
Otherwise, it looks okay. Thanks.