Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "exxecut".
Did you mean:
execut
2020 May 28
4
Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc
...finition, which was left, is in a piece of debug info related to deleted
> code. According to zero-length rule, that definition could be ignored, and
> finally, incomplete debug info could be used.
>
Yeah, I think the bug there is the linker dropping object files just
because they have no exxecutable code in them - I think the patch that did
that was reverted, if I'm remembering correctly.
>
> So, it probably should be forbidden to generate debug_info, which could
> become incomplete after removing pieces related to zero length address
> ranges. Otherwise, creating zero-le...
2020 May 29
4
Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc
...ith the
>same approach as debug_ranges, but I haven't looked at debug_aranges in a
>long time.
>
>I guess the only remaining question is: Since it's possible to have code on
>some systems down at address zero, or close enough to it that [0, length)
>might overlap with real exxecutable code addresses - does anyone know of
>the inverse: where code is mapped up near uint32 max? Such that that usage
>wouldn't be able to sacrifice uint32 max - 1 to use as a blessed value here?
>
>- Dave
>
>
>>
>>
>> --paulr
>>
>>
>>
>&g...
2020 May 28
2
Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc
As has been mentioned elsewhere, Sony generally fixes up references from debug info to stripped functions (of any length) using -1, because that's a less-likely-to-be-real address than 0x0 or 0x1. (0x0 is a typical base address for shared libraries, I'd think using it has the potential to mislead various consumers.) For .debug_ranges we use -2, because both a 0/0 pair and a -1/-1 pair
2020 May 29
2
Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc
...looked at debug_aranges in a
> > >long time.
> > >
> > >I guess the only remaining question is: Since it's possible to have code
> > on
> > >some systems down at address zero, or close enough to it that [0, length)
> > >might overlap with real exxecutable code addresses - does anyone know of
> > >the inverse: where code is mapped up near uint32 max? Such that that
> > usage
> > >wouldn't be able to sacrifice uint32 max - 1 to use as a blessed value
> > here?
> > >
> > >- Dave
> > >
>...
2020 May 29
2
Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc
...> >
> > > > >I guess the only remaining question is: Since it's possible to have
> > code
> > > > on
> > > > >some systems down at address zero, or close enough to it that [0,
> > length)
> > > > >might overlap with real exxecutable code addresses - does anyone know
> > of
> > > > >the inverse: where code is mapped up near uint32 max? Such that that
> > > > usage
> > > > >wouldn't be able to sacrifice uint32 max - 1 to use as a blessed
> > value
> > > >...
2020 May 31
2
Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc
...only remaining question is: Since it's possible to have
> >> > code
> >> > > > on
> >> > > > >some systems down at address zero, or close enough to it that [0,
> >> > length)
> >> > > > >might overlap with real exxecutable code addresses - does anyone know
> >> > of
> >> > > > >the inverse: where code is mapped up near uint32 max? Such that that
> >> > > > usage
> >> > > > >wouldn't be able to sacrifice uint32 max - 1 to use as a blessed...
2020 May 27
4
Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc
So there have been several recent discussions about the issues around
DWARF-agnostic linking and gc-sections, linkonce function definitions being
dropped, etc - and just how much DWARF-awareness would be suitable in a
linker to help with this situation.
I'd like to discuss a narrower instance of this issue: Zero length
gc'd/deduplicated functions.
LLVM seems to at least produce zero
2020 May 31
3
Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc
...ossible to have
> >> >> > code
> >> >> > > > on
> >> >> > > > >some systems down at address zero, or close enough to it that [0,
> >> >> > length)
> >> >> > > > >might overlap with real exxecutable code addresses - does anyone know
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > > > >the inverse: where code is mapped up near uint32 max? Such that that
> >> >> > > > usage
> >> >> > > > >wouldn't be able to sacrifice...