Hi, Kazu and Arun
在 2020年09月25日 00:00, crash-utility-request(a)redhat.com 写道:
Send Crash-utility mailing list submissions to
crash-utility(a)redhat.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
crash-utility-request(a)redhat.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
crash-utility-owner(a)redhat.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Crash-utility digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. [PATCH] Fix for failure when using extensions on PPC64 target
x86_64 binary (HAGIO KAZUHITO (?????))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 08:16:06 +0000
From: HAGIO KAZUHITO(?????) <k-hagio-ab(a)nec.com>
To: "Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and
development" <crash-utility(a)redhat.com>
Subject: [Crash-utility] [PATCH] Fix for failure when using extensions
on PPC64 target x86_64 binary
Message-ID:
<OSBPR01MB1991B1B7CD686FBC72827E2BDD390(a)OSBPR01MB1991.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
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(a)gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kazuhito Hagio <k-hagio-ab(a)nec.com>
---
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?
Thanks.
Lianbo
return TRUE;
break;