On 6 Aug 2010, at 17:39, Adam Leventhal wrote: >> Yes, exactly, but our ld (GNU) seems to remove the .SUWN_dof section.. I'm >> writing code to add the section using libelf. Also, our ld ignores SUNW_dof >> section types, so I'm using SHT_PROGBITS as an interim solution (drti.c >> needs changes for this to work). > > We've modified our linker to understand the new section. Would it be > reasonable to do the same for GNU ld?
Maybe, but I don't know if I'll do that now. Touching vendor sources in FreeBSD is not the best idea. This is also ld's fault as it should not be removing OS specific sections from the object files (initially I used ld + objcopy). > Do you have a suggestion for how we might have designed the interaction > between DTrace and the linker differently? I would have expected the SUNW_dof section to be just like a SUNW_ctf section. I.e., a PROGBITS section with a special name (SUNW_dof). I don't know the history of the SUNW_dof section so I can't comment on how easy / feasible this would be. Regards, -- Rui Paulo _______________________________________________ dtrace-discuss mailing list dtrace-discuss@opensolaris.org
