This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ping: [Patch] Make libstdc++'s abi_check more robust against readelf output format
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Simon Baldwin <simonb at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:25:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: Ping: [Patch] Make libstdc++'s abi_check more robust against readelf output format
- References: <BANLkTimVofYQwRG3kbKWhZaWQ-NuRvBLVQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2 June 2011 08:55, Simon Baldwin wrote:
>> Index: libstdc++-v3/scripts/extract_symvers.in
>> ===================================================================
>> --- libstdc++-v3/scripts/extract_symvers.in ? ? (revision 173951)
>> +++ libstdc++-v3/scripts/extract_symvers.in ? ? (working copy)
>> @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ SunOS)
>> ? ${readelf} ${lib} |\
>> ? sed -e 's/ \[<other>: [A-Fa-f0-9]*\] //' -e '/\.dynsym/,/^$/p;d' |\
>> ? egrep -v ' (LOCAL|UND) ' |\
>> + ?sed -e 's/ <processor specific>: / <processor_specific>:_/g' |\
>> + ?sed -e 's/ <OS specific>: / <OS_specific>:_/g' |\
>> + ?sed -e 's/ <unknown>: / <unknown>:_/g' |\
Is there a reason to use three sed processes instead of one?
We already assume "sed -e script -e script" works earlier in that pipeline.
We could even replace the egrep with a sed 'd' command and combine it
all into a single sed, but that could be left for another day.