On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 13:14 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:37:20 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 18:25 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > > (gdb) bt > > > #0 0x00000000100004d0 in .f () > > > #1 0x0000000010000500 in .main () > > > > IMHO that is just weirdness/bug in GDB. > > No matter what it is it is a standard.
Sure for some low-level/synthetic ELF symbol name ABI. But I don't see why that has to leak through to the user in a backtrace where they just want to know which function name corresponds to a specific address. The extra dot doesn't add any value in this case and is just confusing. > > > You need about that looked up function symbol also the function size, > > > starting > > > code address, visibility and binding. It is mostly the whole GElf_Sym > > > structure (except you do not need numerical st_name and st_shndx is > > > probably > > > also not useful). This is all returned by dwfl_module_addrsym in my > > > original > > > post. > > > > OK, but you can just use the function descriptor symbol for that can't > > you? There is nothing an synthetic generated symbol would add is there? > > In the function descriptor symbol ST_VALUE points to the descriptor. > In the synthetic generated symbol ST_VALUE points to the code entry address. Right, but we pass around the code entry address separately from the symbol. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
