https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25803
--- Comment #29 from gagan singh sidhu (gagz, broly, w/e u want) <broly at mac
dot com> ---
hi cliffz,
thanks for this information.
i saw your commit and while it’s not wrong, i was hoping you would be open to
suggestions:
1. we don’t need both the changes to elfxx-mips.c and obj-elf.c.
-the change to obj-elf.c will avoid us ever having the situation again
in elfxx-mips.c
so in terms of a minimalist aspect, i was hoping you would pick whichever
change you wanted, and disregard the other.
-the whole “less changes is a good thing” paradigm
no comment on testsuite stuff as i am not familiar with them.
Thanks,
Gagan
> On Apr 17, 2020, at 1:14 AM, nickc at redhat dot com
> <sourceware-bugzi...@sourceware.org> wrote:
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25803
>
> Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
> Resolution|--- |FIXED
>
> --- Comment #28 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> ---
> (In reply to gagan singh sidhu (gagz, broly, w/e u want) from comment #27)
>
>> if you don’t mind, would you allow me to mail you in the future to learn
>> about how exactly you pinpointed the issue?
>
> You can - although there is no need to just email me - you can ask here, or on
> the binutils mailing list: binut...@sourceware.org.
>
> Anyway to answer your question, I basically followed my standard bug
> locating/fixing procedure which is:
>
> 1. Reproduce the problem. [This was actually the hardest step]
> 2. Add print statements to the code to find out what is wrong.
> [Other people use debuggers, but I am old school].
> 3. Generate possible fixes based on the knowledge of what is wrong.
> 4. Test them out.
>
> In this particular case I replaced the assertion that was being triggered with
> a series of printf()s telling me about the symbols that were causing the
> problems. I then followed several blind alleys assuming that the symbols
> should not have been there and trying to find out why. Eventually however I
> was able to prove to my satisfaction that the higher level code was correct
> and
> that the symbols were indeed dynamic symbols. So then I looked more closely
> at
> them, saw their similar looking names, and hence created my post about "what
> is
> special about these clock symbols". Digging deeper I eventually noticed that
> they were all IFUNC symbols and then is when the penny dropped.
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
