Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 12:15 +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > >> Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 09:10 +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Folks, >>>> as reported into glibc bug #5104 >>>> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5104) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> I am good with this change. One question though: I don't think the >>> STT_SECTION and STT_FILE are present in a relocatable object. If this >>> is true(needs to be checked), then the above if stmt can be changed to: >>> #define STT_RELOC_MAX STT_TLS >>> or >>> #define STT_RELOC_MAX STT_COMMON >>> if (ELF_ST_TYPE(sym->st_info) > STT_RELOC_MAX) >>> >>> or if the above assumption is true only for STT_FILE >>> if (ELF_ST_TYPE(sym->st_info) > STT_RELOC_MAX || ELF_ST_TYPE(sym->st_info) >>> == STT_SECTION) >>> >>> >> This is the case, STT_SECTION symbol are present into symbol table of >> the libuClibc.so.0 for sure. >> Actually, I did not find any STT_FILE symbols... >> > > Right, but they are STB_LOCAL I think. If so they are skipped anyway. > Yes, they are STB_LOCAL, but we should skip them earlier to avoid calling a pointless strcmp... right?
Carmelo _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
