On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:55:42 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > I was just wondering if we could express this more generically. But I > admit to not immediately see how without adding complicating callbacks > as filter functions. The main point was that this function should IMHO > not be expressed in terms of filtering/transforming symbols through a > architecture backend function that gives you the name associated with a > code address.
You have written every part of the rest of mail as if dwfl_module_codesym returned only symbols for code (STT_FUNC and STT_GNU_IFUNC). But the current implementation is just a superset of dwfl_module_addrsym, besides all the symbols dwfl_module_addrsym returns now dwfl_module_codesym returns also the resolved function descriptors. I also still do not understand why dwfl_module_addrsym should exist as I had to replace all the calls of dwfl_module_addrsym in elfutils to call dwfl_module_codesym (or equivalent dwfl_module_codename) instead. This also means any 3rd party code is currently buggy (=not resolveding code addresses on ppc64) as it still uses dwfl_module_addrsym and not dwfl_module_codesym. If it should refuse to resolved anything besides code (STT_FUNC/STT_GNU_IFUNC) then I will have to implemented there such restriction, it is not there. But then it means every caller will have to call both dwfl_module_addrsym and dwfl_module_codesym and choose the result from which one it returns. I can implement it that way (=adding there the STT_FUNC/STT_GNU_IFUNC restriction to dwfl_module_codesym and changing all the current callers of dwfl_module_addrsym to ALSO call dwfl_module_codesym and choose one of the results) but I find it very complicated and bug-prone for the callers. Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
