On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:18:04 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > I do think both examples are relevant. We don't really care whether it > is a "DWARF" or "ELF" symbol,
We are already repeating ourselves. We can state we disagree and we probably won't find an agreement. From my point of view I see the difference in that I choose the standardized and technially more clean way while you choose more (in your eyes) user convenient way. To that point I can add there are no ppc64 end users, on ppc64 there are only ppc64 aware developers. > since what we want is mapping a code address to a name. The problem is that you will then display ELF symbols "funcname" resolved from address 0xcodeaddr but the ELF symbol "funcname" resolves to address 0xdescriptoraddr. This is inconsistent output. After one implements one day also the name->addr referencing of code-address symbols you will get ambiguous resolution of "funcname" to both 0xdescriptoraddr and 0xcodeaddr, which one to choose then? > We don't have to add extra dots in front of the actual function names. Unfortunately we have to as if we don't then we clash with an existing and valid name (with 0xdescriptoraddr value). > We already have the real function name. What is "real"? If you want to call the function you need the 0xdescriptoraddr. If you want to display the function code instructions you need 0xcodeaddr. There is no "better" kind of symbol, there are just two kinds of symbol. > IMHO you are doing extra work to mangle a normal name into something that > resembles an artificial BFD symbol name. And that is what I think is > irrelevant in the elfutils case. I find very unfortunate if elfutils is going to complicate the current ppc64 naming situation even more. Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
