https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18741
markus.eisenmann at gmx dot at changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|gas |binutils
--- Comment #2 from markus.eisenmann at gmx dot at ---
Further findings (IMHO - what I think):
A) bdf/elf-attrs.c: function vendor_set_obj_attr_contents():
Fix of file-attributes length; previous tag-byte not counted.
--- bdf/elf-attrs.c
+++ bdf/elf-attrs.c
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@
memcpy (p, vendor_name, vendor_length);
p += vendor_length;
*(p++) = Tag_File;
- bfd_put_32 (abfd, size - 4 - vendor_length, p);
+ bfd_put_32 (abfd, size - 5 - vendor_length, p);
p += 4;
attr = elf_known_obj_attributes (abfd)[vendor];
B) bdf/elf-attrs.c: function vendor_obj_attr_size():
Even in case of vendor==OBJ_ATTR_PROC do not adjust size if there are no
attributes.
--- bdf/elf-attrs.c
+++ bdf/elf-attrs.c
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@
size += obj_attr_size (list->tag, &list->attr);
/* <size> <vendor_name> NUL 0x1 <size> */
- return ((size || vendor == OBJ_ATTR_PROC)
+ return (size
? size + 10 + strlen (vendor_name)
: 0);
}
In case of B), I'm not sure whether this is valid; Or readelf should be fixed
to recognize an empty attribute-list after the vendor-name?
Best regards from Salzburg,
Markus
P.S.: May a binutils-maintainer can review this issue and confirm, whether this
is really an bug (or not)?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
