On 25 Jun 2010, at 10:28, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> Here's a patch that is supposed to do the right thing for dtrace.
> Perhaps I should have put the new code under __amd64__, but I decided to go
> more
> "generic" and check for module's ELF type (ET_REL).
>
> Reviews and testing are welcome!
I
Here's a patch that is supposed to do the right thing for dtrace.
Perhaps I should have put the new code under __amd64__, but I decided to go more
"generic" and check for module's ELF type (ET_REL).
Reviews and testing are welcome!
diff --git a/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libdtrace/common/dt_im
on 22/06/2010 00:34 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> gdb change - I'd rather do it via kld_current_sos,
> kld_relocate_section_addresses. I'd like to avoid changing common gdb code
> for
> a variety of reasons.
I came up with the following patch.
EXEC_P and DYNAMIC flags are bfd library equiva
on 22/06/2010 01:00 Navdeep Parhar said the following:
>
> I'm not so sure about this. There is code inside the second switch that runs
> whether sh_size is 0 or not. Either all of it is pointless code (when sh_size
> is 0) or or you'll make sure that it still runs, right?
It's definitely point
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:34:49AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 21/06/2010 23:44 Navdeep Parhar said the following:
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:10:45PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> On Monday 21 June 2010 11:57:17 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>> on 21/06/2010 18:43 John Baldwin said the follow
on 21/06/2010 23:44 Navdeep Parhar said the following:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:10:45PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Monday 21 June 2010 11:57:17 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> on 21/06/2010 18:43 John Baldwin said the following:
np@ has a patch to gdb to fix this for kgdb. I haven't comm
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:10:45PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday 21 June 2010 11:57:17 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > on 21/06/2010 18:43 John Baldwin said the following:
> > > np@ has a patch to gdb to fix this for kgdb. I haven't committed it as
> > > it
> > > patched gdb internals and wa
On Monday 21 June 2010 11:57:17 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 21/06/2010 18:43 John Baldwin said the following:
> > np@ has a patch to gdb to fix this for kgdb. I haven't committed it as it
> > patched gdb internals and wasn't in a kgdb-specific place, but I'm not
sure of
> > a better way to fix
on 21/06/2010 18:43 John Baldwin said the following:
> np@ has a patch to gdb to fix this for kgdb. I haven't committed it as it
> patched gdb internals and wasn't in a kgdb-specific place, but I'm not sure
> of
> a better way to fix kgdb.
Oh, yes, section mapping is done in common gdb code.
P
On Monday 21 June 2010 10:39:08 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> I've noticed that on amd64 addresses (sh_addr) of all sections in a kernel
module
> are zeros.
> This is unlike kernel itself and i386 modules.
>
> Kernel linker maps SHT_PROGBITS and SHT_NOBITS sections sequentially
starting at a
> cer
I've noticed that on amd64 addresses (sh_addr) of all sections in a kernel
module
are zeros.
This is unlike kernel itself and i386 modules.
Kernel linker maps SHT_PROGBITS and SHT_NOBITS sections sequentially starting
at a
certain base address and taking into account their sizes and alignment
11 matches
Mail list logo
