9 Sep
2016
9 Sep
'16
2:03 a.m.
Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com> writes:
@@ -123,6 +123,18 @@ static struct wine_preload_info
preload_info[] =
{ 0, 0 } /* end of list */
};
+/* A fake .dynamic section through which we can inform the debugger of the
+ address of the chain-loaded dynamic linker's rendezvous struct */
+__asm__(
+".section .dynamic,\"aw\"\n"
+".global _DYNAMIC\n"
+"_DYNAMIC: .quad 21\n" // DT_DEBUG
+".quad 0\n"
+".quad 0\n"
+".quad 0\n"
+".previous\n"
+);
This is causing a warning here:
gcc -m32 -c -o preloader.o preloader.c -I. -I../include -D__WINESRC__ -fno-builtin -Wall
-pipe \
-fno-strict-aliasing -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wempty-body -Wignored-qualifiers \
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wtype-limits -Wunused-but-set-parameter -Wvla -Wwrite-strings
-Wpointer-arith \
-Wlogical-op -gdwarf-2 -gstrict-dwarf -fno-omit-frame-pointer -Werror -g -O2
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:5: Warning: setting incorrect section attributes for .dynamic
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org
9 Sep
9 Sep
2:13 a.m.
New subject: [v2] preloader: Allow a debugger to find ld.so's rendezvous-struct
Whether .dynamic is writable depends on the architecture (I believe
the only one on which it isn't is MIPS, but I could be wrong about
that). Looks like binutils doesn't take that into account when issuing
this diagnostic in the assembler and expects .dynamic to have
SHF_ALLOC only. Probably something to complain about to them. I don't
believe there's an actual problem though, just an incorrect
diagnostic.
2:36 a.m.
New subject: [v2] preloader: Allow a debugger to find ld.so's rendezvous-struct
Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com> writes:
Whether .dynamic is writable depends on the
architecture (I believe
the only one on which it isn't is MIPS, but I could be wrong about
that). Looks like binutils doesn't take that into account when issuing
this diagnostic in the assembler and expects .dynamic to have
SHF_ALLOC only. Probably something to complain about to them. I don't
believe there's an actual problem though, just an incorrect
diagnostic.
We don't want to introduce build warnings though, so even if this is a
binutils bug it would have to be avoided somehow.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org
2:44 a.m.
New subject: [v2] preloader: Allow a debugger to find ld.so's rendezvous-struct
Ok, that can probably be done with some linker script magic, since
this is merely a warning in the assembler. I'll take a look at that.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com> writes:
Whether .dynamic is writable depends on the
architecture (I believe
the only one on which it isn't is MIPS, but I could be wrong about
that). Looks like binutils doesn't take that into account when issuing
this diagnostic in the assembler and expects .dynamic to have
SHF_ALLOC only. Probably something to complain about to them. I don't
believe there's an actual problem though, just an incorrect
diagnostic.
We don't want to introduce build warnings though, so even if this is a
binutils bug it would have to be avoided somehow.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org
10 Oct
10 Oct
9:03 p.m.
New subject: [v2] preloader: Allow a debugger to find ld.so's rendezvous-struct
I had submitted v3 of this patch, but I don't see it on
https://source.winehq.org/patches/ anymore. Was there some review comments
I missed somewhere?
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com>
wrote:
Ok, that can probably be done with some linker script
magic, since
this is merely a warning in the assembler. I'll take a look at that.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>
wrote:
Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com>
writes:
Whether .dynamic is writable depends on the
architecture (I believe
the only one on which it isn't is MIPS, but I could be wrong about
that). Looks like binutils doesn't take that into account when issuing
this diagnostic in the assembler and expects .dynamic to have
SHF_ALLOC only. Probably something to complain about to them. I don't
believe there's an actual problem though, just an incorrect
diagnostic.
We don't want to introduce build warnings though, so even if this is a
binutils bug it would have to be avoided somehow.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org
19 Nov
19 Nov
9:29 p.m.
New subject: [v2] preloader: Allow a debugger to find ld.so's rendezvous-struct
Bump on the question of what happened to this patch.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com> wrote:
I had submitted v3 of this patch, but I don't see
it on
https://source.winehq.org/patches/ anymore. Was there some review comments I
missed somewhere?
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com>
wrote:
Ok, that can probably be done with some linker script magic, since
this is merely a warning in the assembler. I'll take a look at that.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>
wrote:
> Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com> writes:
>
>> Whether .dynamic is writable depends on the architecture (I believe
>> the only one on which it isn't is MIPS, but I could be wrong about
>> that). Looks like binutils doesn't take that into account when issuing
>> this diagnostic in the assembler and expects .dynamic to have
>> SHF_ALLOC only. Probably something to complain about to them. I don't
>> believe there's an actual problem though, just an incorrect
>> diagnostic.
>
> We don't want to introduce build warnings though, so even if this is a
> binutils bug it would have to be avoided somehow.
>
> --
> Alexandre Julliard
> julliard(a)winehq.org
12 Dec
12 Dec
5:30 a.m.
New subject: [v2] preloader: Allow a debugger to find ld.so's rendezvous-struct
Monthly bump on "Where'd my patch go?"
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com> wrote:
Bump on the question of what happened to this patch.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com> wrote:
> I had submitted v3 of this patch, but I don't see it on
> https://source.winehq.org/patches/ anymore. Was there some review comments I
> missed somewhere?
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, that can probably be done with some linker script magic, since
>> this is merely a warning in the assembler. I'll take a look at that.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Keno Fischer <keno(a)juliacomputing.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Whether .dynamic is writable depends on the architecture (I believe
>> >> the only one on which it isn't is MIPS, but I could be wrong about
>> >> that). Looks like binutils doesn't take that into account when
issuing
>> >> this diagnostic in the assembler and expects .dynamic to have
>> >> SHF_ALLOC only. Probably something to complain about to them. I
don't
>> >> believe there's an actual problem though, just an incorrect
>> >> diagnostic.
>> >
>> > We don't want to introduce build warnings though, so even if this is a
>> > binutils bug it would have to be avoided somehow.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Alexandre Julliard
>> > julliard(a)winehq.org
>
>
2699
days inactive
2793
days old
6 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Keno Fischer