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
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) ...