This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] --enable-linker-build-id by default

From: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] --enable-linker-build-id by default
References: <20101005050958.3841D401B2@magilla.sf.frob.com> <4CAB37D5.2040105@gnu.org> <20101005193707.A73C3401B2@magilla.sf.frob.com> <orbp77zpiy.fsf@livre.localdomain>

> As long as the build IDs are in executables, rather than in object
> files, we should be fine.

Ah, good.

> I wonder if it would make sense to use the compiler's buildid for this
> purpose.  Roland, is it possible/easy for a running executable to obtain
> its own buildid?

It's certainly possible (it's just some of your text) but not inherently
easy.  The .note.gnu.build-id section does not have any automagic symbols
(unless ld does something I don't know about).  So you'd have to use a
linker script to define some, or else examine your own ELF header to find a
PT_NOTE and decode your notes to find it.


Thanks,
Roland

References:
- [PATCH] --enable-linker-build-id by default
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: [PATCH] --enable-linker-build-id by default
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: [PATCH] --enable-linker-build-id by default
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: [PATCH] --enable-linker-build-id by default
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]