Re: [RFA] Kill SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING (was Re: multi-arch TODO)

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

Kevin Buettner wrote:
> 
> On Apr 23,  3:00am, David S. Miller wrote:
> 
> >    >   Why don't all Linux targets define this?  Do some binutils ports
> >    >   perform this optimization and others not?  Or was there some bug
> >    >   in N_FUN/N_SO stabs in binutils and/or gcc that this is papering
> >    >   around?  kevinb@cyghat.com is the one who added this to powerpc
> >    >   and i386 Linux.
> >
> >    I haven't given it a lot of thought recently, but my opinion is that
> >    the SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING code ought to be enabled everywhere.
> >    The only downside that I can think of is that we lose the ability
> >    to put a symbol at address 0.
> >
> > Sounds find to me, how about this patch?
> >
> > 2002-04-23  David S. Miller  <davem@redhat.com>
> >
> >       * config/i386/tm-i386sol2.h, config/i386/tm-linux.h,
> >       config/powerpc/tm-linux.h, config/powerpc/tm-ppc-eabi.h,
> >       config/sparc/tm-sun4sol2.h (SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING): Kill.
> >       * dbxread.c, elfread.c, minsyms.c, mdebugread.c, symmisc.c,
> >       symtab.h (whole file): Act as if SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING was
> >       always defined, kill ifdefs.
> 
> Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind.  It looks okay to me, but it
> needs to be carefully considered and approved (or not) by the symtab
> maintainers.
> 
> As noted earlier, the downside is that we lose the ability to put a
> symbol at address 0.  This doesn't pose a problem for operating
> systems which'll never map part of the program at address 0, but there
> may be some embedded environments for which this is a concern.

Replace "may be" with "almost certainly are".