Le dimanche 10 octobre 2010 13:38:54, vous avez écrit :
> [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?
Absolutely correct. I know it seems odd to leave the patch error unfixed, but
it's just I'm reluctant to make a change to a code tested for more than 50
days without any bug report while we are in deep freeze. In the mean time the
change is quite minimal. A new package is ready anyway so tell me if you want
I upload it and I'll do it right away.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
Regards,
Thomas Preud'homme
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.