[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#599625: unblock: tcc/0.9.25-5

[Was this intentionally not sent to the bug? If not then please direct
follow-ups there as well]

On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 03:02 +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le samedi 09 octobre 2010 20:56:01, vous avez écrit :
> > +--- a/libtcc.c
> > ++++ b/libtcc.c
> > +@@ -1431,7 +1431,11 @@ static void rt_printline(unsigned long wanted_pc)
> > [...]
> > ++#ifdef STT_IFUNC
> > ++            if ((type == STT_FUNC) || (type == STT_GNU_IFUNC)) {
> > 
> > Should the ifdef not also refer to STT_GNU_IFUNC?  This appears to be
> > the only occurrence of STT_IFUNC in the package.
> No it should not. In fact the ifdef should simply go away. But part of the 
> code is really not important. It's about displaying source line number in case 
> of runtime error and the function in which the error is. As the ifdef isn't 
> correct (it should  use STT_GNU_IFUNC or simply not exists), and the function 
> where the error happen is a STT_GNU_IFUNC symbol, it won't display the 
> function name but just the PC. In other words, it's not a regression and as 
> only string functions in (e)glibc seems to use STT_GNU_IFUNC the effect is 
> limited.

So the code works, but has unhelpful (at least, not as helpful as it
could be) reporting in the case of errors?



Reply to: