On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:21:55AM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > libdwfl/ > 2013-07-22 Jan Kratochvil <[email protected]> > > * core-file.c (clear_r_debug_info): Close also ELF and FD. > (dwfl_core_file_report): Call __libdwfl_report_elf for > R_DEBUG_INFO.MODULE.
The following two are in * dwfl_report_elf.c: > (__libdwfl_elf_address_range): New function from code of ... > (__libdwfl_report_elf): ... this function. Call it. > * dwfl_segment_report_module.c: Include unistd.h. > (dwfl_segment_report_module): Use basename for MODULE->NAME. > Clear MODULE if it has no build-id and we have segment with build-id. > Ignore this segment only if MODULE still contains valid ELF. > * libdwflP.h (__libdwfl_elf_address_range): New declaration. > (struct r_debug_info_module): New fields fd, elf, l_addr, start, end > and disk_file_has_build_id. > (dwfl_link_map_report): Extend the comment. > * link_map.c (report_r_debug): Extend the comment. Always fill in new > r_debug_info_module. Initialize also the new r_debug_info_module > fields. Remove one FIXME comment. Call __libdwfl_elf_address_range > instead of __libdwfl_report_elf when R_DEBUG_INFO is not NULL. Looks OK to me, but I haven't tried it. > tests/ > 2013-07-22 Jan Kratochvil <[email protected]> > > * run-unstrip-n.sh (test-core.*): Ignore libc.so.6 entry and order of > the entries. I understand why you don't want to rely on the order of the entries. But why ignore the libc entry? Thanks, Mark _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
