On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:24 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:13:37 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I don't think dwfl_module_addrsym () really has anything to do with the > > ppc64 ABI > > That is in fact the whole question to IBM, whether it has or has not.
No. You are mixing things. You may certainly ask anybody how the dwfl_module_addrsym in libdwfl should work. And you may also certainly ask what a backtrace on ppc64 should look like. And it may very well be that someone from IBM has great input on both issues. But they are not the same issue. > But without resolving it yet I ask a different question to get more a picture > how your solution may work: > > If elfutils had name -> address resolver (still without DWARF capability) > which address should be resolved for "raise"? Should be ".raise" also > resolved? Again this is a different question from how dwfl_module_addrsym () works. It is a too generic question to know the precise answer now. If in the symbol table that you use to resolve such a name -> address mapping dot-prefixed names are there then it probably will. Or maybe the architecture specific backend has some matching that (de)mangles the name before matching. We can discuss when we implement it. I have explained to you how the return value of dwfl_module_addrsym () works. That is just how it is. You might not agree, but creating artificial names or symbols is really not how it is supposed to work. Thanks, Mark _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
