Hello Mark,
Just finished some modifications to the patch series, git request-pull
output below. This rebases onto the latest master and does a little
diff cleaning, the major change is that I swapped out the memory
management to use the pthread_key_* alternative mentioned before. I did
some
From: Omar Sandoval
The tool was just added, but it's missing the ignore entry.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
---
.gitignore | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index e8201dcc..72f22855 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ Makefile.i
From: Omar Sandoval
Currently, libcpu and libebl are always compiled as PIC. An upcoming
change will add the objects from libcpu.a and libebl.a to libdw.a, which
should not be PIC unless configured that way. So, make libcpu.a and
libebl.a non-PIC and add libcpu_pic.a and libebl_pic.a.
Signed-off
From: Omar Sandoval
This is a rebase of my previously posted series [1][2].
Besides the rebase, the only other change is dropping patch 5, which we
agreed is not necessary.
Thanks!
1: https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/2019-q3/msg00020.html
2: https://sourceware.org/ml/elfutils-devel/201
From: Omar Sandoval
Currently, architecture-specific code for libebl exists in separate
libebl_$ARCH.so libraries which libebl loads with dlopen() at runtime.
This makes it impossible to have standalone, statically-linked binaries
which use libdwfl if they depend on any architecture-specific
func
From: Omar Sandoval
gen_SOURCES is assigned to libebl_a_SOURCES and never used again. Get
rid of it.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
---
libebl/ChangeLog | 4
libebl/Makefile.am | 39 +++
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/
From: Omar Sandoval
In preparation for combining the libebl backend modules, combine all of
the libcpu backends into libcpu.a.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
---
backends/ChangeLog | 4
backends/Makefile.am | 12 +++-
libcpu/ChangeLog | 4
libcpu/Makefile.am | 12
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23903
--- Comment #14 from Mark Wielaard ---
Hi Jean Michault,
I am still interested getting this patch in. Could you look at comment #13 to
see if the CONTRIBUTING text makes sense and if you could provide the
tests/test-suite.log file to analyze
Hi Omar,
On Tue, 2019-07-09 at 12:25 -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 09:14:03PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Then after the release, somewhere next week, we'll apply your patches
> > first and can then deal with any fallout and followups. I am thinking
> > of moving some o
Looks correct to me (assuming it applies). I think there's another
latent bug in there somewhere (tests that use libdwfl used to leak
mem_tails, but now that dwarf_begin_elf doesn't do an initial malloc it
doesn't trigger), I'll try hunting it down when I have the time.
Glad I could be of help
Hi Jonathon,
Thanks for checking our new mailinglist settings :)
You message was accepted now and the HTML attachment stripped.
On Sun, 2019-08-25 at 20:24 -0500, Jonathon Anderson wrote:
> The one extra line in dwarf_getcfi.c
> is to account for a failure in the test suite when Valgrind is
> ena
Hi,
On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 12:32 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> There are multiple sections that can contain ELF Notes. It is sometimes
> nice to just list the notes from a specific section.
>
> -n, --notes[=SECTION] Display the ELF notes
Pushed to master.
12 matches
Mail list logo