This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PATCH: Add x32 support to dynamic linker audit
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@systemhalted.org> writes:
>
>> 2012/3/22 David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
>>> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
>>> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:08:40 +0100
>>>
>>>> That doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>> ../sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h:231:9: warning: ‘struct La_x32_regs’ declared inside parameter list [enabled by default]
>>>> ../sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h:231:9: warning: its scope is only this definition or declaration, which is probably not what you want [enabled by default]
>>>> ../sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h:280:10: warning: ‘struct La_x32_regs’ declared inside parameter list [enabled by default]
>>>
>>> Right, I'm seeing these on sparc builds too.
>>
>> Well shucks. OK, I've just kicked off my usual morning build, I'll
>> have a look at this.
>
> This will fix it.
>
> ? ? ? ?* sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h: Use La_x86_64_regs instead of
> ? ? ? ?La_x32_regs in prototypes.
> ---
> ?sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h | ? ?4 ++--
> ?1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h b/sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h
> index d4cbaba..e5ed2be 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h
> +++ b/sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h
> @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ struct audit_ifaces
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? unsigned int *, const char *name,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? long int *framesizep);
> ? ? Elf32_Addr (*x32_gnu_pltenter) (Elf32_Sym *, unsigned int, uintptr_t *,
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? uintptr_t *, struct La_x32_regs *,
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? uintptr_t *, struct La_x86_64_regs *,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?unsigned int *, const char *name,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?long int *framesizep);
> ? ? Elf32_Addr (*ppc32_gnu_pltenter) (Elf32_Sym *, unsigned int, uintptr_t *,
> @@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ struct audit_ifaces
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?const char *);
> ? ? unsigned int (*x32_gnu_pltexit) (Elf32_Sym *, unsigned int, uintptr_t *,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? uintptr_t *,
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?const struct La_x32_regs *,
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?const struct La_x86_64_regs *,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? struct La_x86_64_retval *,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? const char *);
> ? ? unsigned int (*ppc32_gnu_pltexit) (Elf32_Sym *, unsigned int, uintptr_t *,
> --
That's not the fix we want though.
The types should match in name so as to make documenting easy and not
confuse developers.
See my comments to H.J. regarding the original patch.
Cheers,
Carlos.