shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 17:57 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Does 0x... work any better? (The leading "0x" means this is a
>> hexadecimal address.)
>
> oh wow, i feel like an idiot now, i just copy/pasted the address....
>
> (gdb) disassemble 0x2c2e0a4c
> Dump of assembler code for function fopen64(char const*, char const*):
> 0x2c2e09d4 <+0>: push {r4, r5, lr}
> 0x2c2e09d8 <+4>: ldr r3, [pc, #316] ; 0x2c2e0b1c <fopen64(char const*,
> char const*)+328>
The disassembly you sent before started with
0x022e09d4 <+0>: push {r4, r5, lr}
0x022e09d8 <+4>: ldr r3, [pc, #316] ; 0x22e0b1c <fopen64(char const*,
so the difference is conveniently 0x0a000000.
That means we were at
0x022e0a4c <+120>: mov r3, #0
(initializing the index for comparing the path to "/dev/urandom").
Um. Or somewhere nearby, I guess --- the addresses seem to be off
a little.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
