在 2020年10月15日 08:14, HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁) 写道:
> Hi Lianbo,
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 08:16:06 +0000
>>> From: HAGIO KAZUHITO(?????) <k-hagio-ab@xxxxxxx>
>>> To: "Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and
>>> development" <crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix for failure when using extensions
>>> on PPC64 target x86_64 binary
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <OSBPR01MB1991B1B7CD686FBC72827E2BDD390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
>>>
>>> Without the patch, the "extend" command on an x86_64 binary that can
>>> be used to analyze ppc64le dumpfiles fails with the error meesage
>>> "extend: <path to extension>: not an ELF format object".
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Arun Easi <aeasi.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kazuhito Hagio <k-hagio-ab@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> I'm not sure which tag I should use in this case, so if you want
>>> me to use another one e.g. Signed-off-by, please let me know.
>>>
>>> symbols.c | 3 ++-
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/symbols.c b/symbols.c
>>> index d22fb1d9bdd1..603946db4f34 100644
>>> --- a/symbols.c
>>> +++ b/symbols.c
>>> @@ -3868,7 +3868,8 @@ is_shared_object(char *file)
>>> break;
>>>
>>> case EM_X86_64:
>>> - if (machine_type("X86_64") || machine_type("ARM64"))
>>> + if (machine_type("X86_64") || machine_type("ARM64") ||
>>> + machine_type("PPC64"))
>>
>> For the other architectures such as S390, IA64, etc, is it possible to occur
>> the similar problems on an x86_64 host? Or no one uses it like this?
>
> No, as you know, these are the architectures that x86_64 binary can analyze.
> Please see README and configure.c. They will be completed by this patch,
Thank you for the explanation, Kazu.
I have no other issue. Acked-by: Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> I think.
>
> Thanks,
> Kazu
>
>
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
