On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 06/11/2014 10:23 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> >>> So this does fix the invocation of 'make vdso_install' and the >>> resulting files look to be accurate to me, with the glaring exception >>> that now we get e.g. vdso64.so on x86_64 as the installed file instead >>> of vdso.so. How much that actually matters, I have no idea. >>> Plausibly fixed with a symlink if we really need to perhaps. >>> >> >> You have that problem anyway, no? After all, there are three different >> vdso images for 32 bits, and you can run 32-bit apps on 64-bit systems, too. > > Yeah, true. > >> Is there realistically any way for the debugger to pick up the correct one? > > Probably not. Sure there is: build ids. See /usr/lib/debug/.build-id. It would be great if we could teach the various debugging tools (libdw? gdb? I don't know what's responsible for the search path) to search both /usr/lib/debug/.build-id and /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build-id or something like that. > > I'm planning on pushing out our first 3.16 build with > these two patches with no symlink. I very much doubt anyone is going > to complain. It was just something I noticed. Does the Fedora RPM magic debuginfo script notice these files and symlink them into the .build-id directory? Of course, we don't seem to be generating build ids right now. I thought we were. I'll see if I can fix it. --Andy > > josh -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
