* Jakub Jelinek:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 09:35:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> +struct dl_find_object
>> +{
>> + unsigned long long int dlfo_flags; /* Currently 0. */
>> + void *dlfo_map_start; /* Beginning of mapping containing
>> address. */
>> + void *dlfo_map_end; /* End of mapping. */
>> + struct link_map *dlfo_link_map;
>> + void *dlfo_eh_frame; /* Exception handling data of the
>> object. */
>> +# if DLFO_STRUCT_HAS_EH_DBASE
>> + void *dlfo_eh_dbase; /* Base address for DW_EH_PE_datarel.
>> */
>> +# endif
>> +# if DLFO_STRUCT_HAS_EH_COUNT
>> + int dlfo_eh_count; /* Number of exception handling
>> entries. */
>> +# endif
>> +};
>
> I must say I still don't really like these conditionally included
> fields, if in the future one needs some of them on some other architecture,
> we'd need to add another API or symbol version it etc.
That suggests to me that I should add a few __dwlfo_unused members. And
if the fields are actually used, a future version would set a flag (in
case a zero value for the field has meaning). We don't even have to
initialize these members today.
(Although I do not see much need for members like dbase: we are copying
a value that the link editor has computed. It could have easily written
that to the EH segment, too.)
Thanks,
Florian
