[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag
From: |
danmcd at mnx dot io |
Subject: |
[Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:01:22 +0000 |
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32211
--- Comment #17 from Dan McDonald <danmcd at mnx dot io> ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #16)
> Hi Dan,
>
> (In reply to Dan McDonald from comment #15)
> > 1.) Thank you for confirming there was a doc update and I should've RTFM
> > more carefully. There's a philosophical argument about surprising chnages,
> > but given the next item I'm not going to raise a stink.
>
> Thanks. I am sorry that this change caused you so much hassle. At the time
> it seemed rather obvious - bss sections do not contain anything (on disk) so
> disassembling them could not produce any useful information. In hindsight
> of course this assumption was wrong.
This all falls out of the (very old version in SmartOS's case) Node.js
automatic generation of debugging symbols for itself, and tools like DTrace.
> I was wondering however - exactly what is it that your testsuite is checking
> for ?
> Maybe there is way to conduct the test without relying on objdump to
> disassemble .bss sections...
SmartOS uses a (very old) version of Node.js. Its debugging support uses
objdump to turn internal state values into a header file for debugging tools
like DTrace and mdb_v8. I'm stuck with a very old version because Node
apparently didn't value interface stability (and introduced so many breaking
changes it forced a version freeze upon SmartOS & friends), but that's a
history I'm not familiar with (having not been in SmartOS-land in its early
days).
illumos (the still-open successor of OpenSolaris) and its distributions have a
strong interface stability-and-documentation culture, which can sometimes be
annoying to folks, but has proven to be robust well after Oracle re-closed the
barn door.
> > This was educational. Thank you for your time & patience.
>
> And thank you for taking the time to report this problem and then persist in
> helping me to understand the real issue.
Persistence until resolution is also a trait of illumos culture. Thank you for
understanding. I think we're good now, and it looks like this is closed so it
looks like you think we're good now too. Thank you!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, (continued)
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, nickc at redhat dot com, 2024/09/26
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, danmcd at mnx dot io, 2024/09/26
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, danmcd at mnx dot io, 2024/09/26
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, danmcd at mnx dot io, 2024/09/26
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, danmcd at mnx dot io, 2024/09/26
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, nickc at redhat dot com, 2024/09/26
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, danmcd at mnx dot io, 2024/09/26
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, nickc at redhat dot com, 2024/09/26
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, danmcd at mnx dot io, 2024/09/26
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag, nickc at redhat dot com, 2024/09/27
- [Bug binutils/32211] 2.41 and later don't seem to honor the `-z` flag,
danmcd at mnx dot io <=