On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:56 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:35:55 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > If we could keep the symbol values, except the adjusted st_value intact > > that would have my preference. > > Yes, it is this way. > > > If you adjust shndxp, do you also adjust sym.st_shndx? > > No, I do not. One cannot always set the real value there, it could belong to > SHN_XINDEX. > > I can force there SHN_XINDEX during the .opd -> .text rewrite so that no one > mistakenly reads it.
No. Lets keep the shndxp/sym.shndx values as they are. > > Both :) > > Please do not mix those two. I am not mixing, I have two concerns. > > The symbol name against which we are matching is what it is, we > > shouldn't change its name IMHO. > > We already change st_value and st_shndx. Why not to change also the name? Because then we change the contract of the function even more. Just changing the st_value can be seen as how the function already works (we consider resolving the function descriptor address just like adjusting the st_value for the module location), but stretching it to do other things too means we really should look into a new function for new functionality. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
