On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Stefan Weil <w...@mail.berlios.de> wrote:
> Am 09.09.2010 20:44, schrieb Blue Swirl:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Stefan Weil <w...@mail.berlios.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 11.08.2010 18:21, schrieb Blue Swirl:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil<w...@mail.berlios.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>>
>>>>> While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are
>>>>> used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size'
>>>> directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the
>>>>> next symbol value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<w...@mail.berlios.de>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++
>>>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h
>>>>> index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644
>>>>> --- a/hw/elf_ops.h
>>>>> +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h
>>>>> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr
>>>>> *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab,
>>>>> syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms));
>>>>>
>>>>> qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ));
>>>>> + for (i = 0; i< nsyms - 1; i++) {
>>>>> + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) {
>>>>> + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value -
>>>>> syms[i].st_value;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed
>>>> to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> qemu_free(syms);
>>>>> syms = NULL;
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.7.1
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The patch is still missing in qemu master.
>>> From the two feedbacks I did not read that anything needs to be changed.
>>> Was I wrong, or can it be applied?
>>
>> Please fix the last symbol. Either we should fix all symbols or none,
>> half fixed (OK, practically all) is not so great.
>
>
> The last symbol is one of several thousands, and most symbols don't need a
> fix,
> so with my fix more than 99.9 or even 99.99 percent of all symbols are ok
> :-)
> If the last symbol happens to be wrong, there is still a high probability
> that
> nobody will notice this because it is unused by QEMU. The problem I faced
> with
> QEMU's disassembly came from symbols with an address followed by code.
> Is there any code after the last symbol? I don't expect that. In a sorted
> list
> of symbols from the text segment, _etext should be the last symbols!
>
> I think that the small chance of a missing fix for the last symbol is in no
> relation
> to the code needed.
>
> Even worse, I have no simple formula to guess a valid value for the last
> symbol.
> The formula you suggested (with the corrections I wrote in my reply) is only
> ok
> if the last symbol is in the text segment. Usually there are also symbols
> for data
> in other segments, and in many cases these segments are located after the
> text segment. In these cases the last symbol is not located in the text
> segment
> which makes guesses of its size much more complicated.
How about using _end then?
