Nothing special here,
output format is similar to the format used by binutils readelf and ELF Tool Chain readelf.
Details
Details
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rL LLVM
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Should we instead switch DT_NEEDED to be like DT_AUXILIARY? This would be similar to the format used by binutils readelf and ELF Tool Chain readelf.
ELF Tool Chain:
Dynamic section at offset 0xd30 contains 25 entries: Tag Type Name/Value 0x0000000000000001 NEEDED Shared library: [libc.so.7] 0x000000000000000e SONAME Library soname: [libdl.so.1]
Binutils:
Dynamic section at offset 0xd30 contains 25 entries: Tag Type Name/Value 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so.7] 0x000000000000000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libdl.so.1]
Comment Actions
Ah, now I see why I did it in that way for DT_AUXILIARY in D24138. I was wondering today why I implemented such a inconsistent output format that time :)
So do what other think ? Should we be consistent with other readelf utils it seems ?
Comment Actions
One note, the ordering of the value tags differs wrt GNU ld. It shouldn't matter, just something I noticed.
GNU ld.bfd 2.17.50
Tag Type Name/Value 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so.7] 0x000000000000000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libdl.so.1] 0x000000007fffffff (FILTER) Filter library: [libc.so.7] 0x000000000000000c (INIT) 0x738 0x000000000000000d (FINI) 0xa48 0x0000000000000004 (HASH) 0x158 ...
Patched lld
Tag Type Name/Value 0x000000007fffffff (FILTER) Filter library: [libc.so.7] 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so.7] 0x000000000000000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libdl.so.1] 0x0000000000000007 (RELA) 0x6c0 0x0000000000000008 (RELASZ) 96 (bytes) ...