================
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+// REQUIRES: system-linux, native
----------------
labath wrote:
If it was a lot of work then sure, I'd agree with you -- but I don't think
that's the case here. I just gave it a shot, and this is the only change I
needed to make on top of your patch to be able to parse DT_NEEDED of a
section-free file (disclaimer: This code is mainly for demonstration, it's
possible there is a better way to do that):
```
diff --git a/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ObjectFileELF.cpp
b/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ObjectFileELF.cpp
index d26215a9ce3f..5f0d2233b865 100644
--- a/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ObjectFileELF.cpp
+++ b/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ObjectFileELF.cpp
@@ -3810,28 +3810,26 @@ std::optional<DataExtractor>
ObjectFileELF::GetDynstrData() {
}
}
- // Every ELF file which represents an executable or shared library has
- // mandatory .dynamic entries. Two of these values are DT_STRTAB and DT_STRSZ
- // and represent the dynamic symbol tables's string table. These are needed
- // by the dynamic loader and we can read them from a process' address space.
- //
- // When loading and ELF file from memory, only the program headers end up
- // being mapped into memory, and we can find these values in the PT_DYNAMIC
- // segment.
- if (!IsInMemory())
- return std::nullopt;
- ProcessSP process_sp(m_process_wp.lock());
- if (!process_sp)
- return std::nullopt;
-
const ELFDynamic *strtab = FindDynamicSymbol(DT_STRTAB);
const ELFDynamic *strsz = FindDynamicSymbol(DT_STRSZ);
if (strtab == nullptr || strsz == nullptr)
return std::nullopt;
- if (DataBufferSP data_sp =
- ReadMemory(process_sp, strtab->d_ptr, strsz->d_val))
- return DataExtractor(data_sp, GetByteOrder(), GetAddressByteSize());
+ if (ProcessSP process_sp = m_process_wp.lock()) {
+ if (DataBufferSP data_sp =
+ ReadMemory(process_sp, strtab->d_ptr, strsz->d_val))
+ return DataExtractor(data_sp, GetByteOrder(), GetAddressByteSize());
+ } else {
+ Address addr;
+ if (addr.ResolveAddressUsingFileSections(strtab->d_ptr, GetSectionList()))
{
+ DataExtractor data;
+ addr.GetSection()->GetSectionData(data);
+ return DataExtractor(data,
+ strtab->d_ptr - addr.GetSection()->GetFileOffset(),
+ strsz->d_val);
+ }
+ }
+
return std::nullopt;
}
```
And I think this goes a long way towards improving the testability of this
patch. I know section-free files aren't likely to be of much use, but they're
really great for testing, and in terms of raw LOC, such a test may cover 80% of
this patch.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101237
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
