This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: A testcase anad a patch for the __gmon_start__ problem on PPC.

To: Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com
Subject: Re: A testcase anad a patch for the __gmon_start__ problem on PPC.
From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:08:51 -0700
CC: hjl at lucon dot org, drepper at redhat dot com, howarth at fuse dot net, libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, aj at suse dot de
References: <20001010203014.A6153@lucon.org> <5.0.0.25.0.20001011113908.01bc88a0@mail.lauterbach.com> <20001011084138.A11246@lucon.org> <00101121344400.01533@enzo.bigblue.local>

> From: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:34:44 +0200
> Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>, Jack Howarth <howarth@fuse.net>,
>         libc-alpha@sourceware.cygnus.com, aj@suse.de

> Well, I would agree, but what really puzzles me, why the hell is the start of 
> __gmon_start__ relocated to an absolute branch to 0? I can understand that 
> the reloc entry pointing to __gmon_start__ gets relocated, but why the first 
> instruction word(s)?

It's the PLT entry, not the actual procedure.  The ELF spec says that
a weak symbol has address 0, so the PLT entry gets changed to be an
absolute branch to location 0.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>

References:
- A testcase anad a patch for the __gmon_start__ problem on PPC.
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: A testcase anad a patch for the __gmon_start__ problem on PPC.
  - From: Franz Sirl
- Re: A testcase anad a patch for the __gmon_start__ problem on PPC.
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: A testcase anad a patch for the __gmon_start__ problem on PPC.
  - From: Franz Sirl

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]