On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 15:36 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:37:53 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > The only reason I was hesitant about the patch was the testcase. I > > assume this mimics what dwfl_linux_proc_report () would do, and it was > > easier to write it using dwfl_report_elf ()? > > dwfl_linux_proc_report uses live PID but if you have a dead core file how to > pass a PID to dwfl_linux_proc_report? > > It is also explained in the patch mail that elfutils uses dwfl_report_segment > which does not have such bug but it is elfutils internal function. > Applications cannot use it. Maybe the unwinder could have a different API > without using dwfl_report_elf but even in such case dwfl_report_elf exists so > its bug should be fixed (by this patch).
Yeah, it seems good to fix this. I was just wondering if there was some other way to trigger it. BTW dwfl_report_segment is a public function. > > If you could add a comment where the constants for base (0x7f3560c92000) > > and funcaddr (0x7f3560c92585) come from (and/or how to calculate your > > own in case someone wants to extend the testcase) that would be > > appreciated. > > Done. > > Therefore I expect it can be checked in. Yes, thanks for adding the explanation to the testcase. BTW. For the git commit message it is nice if the first line (< 78 chars) is a short summary of the fix. That way a git shortlog looks a little easier to read. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
