Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

readelf: use table-based DT_FLAGS and DT_FLAGS_1 decoding
ClosedPublic

Authored by emaste on Feb 1 2019, 3:09 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F153884277: D19053.id53524.diff
Fri, Apr 24, 12:42 PM
F153853340: D19053.id53509.diff
Fri, Apr 24, 6:40 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Apr 21, 5:16 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Apr 17, 7:45 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Apr 12, 11:21 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Apr 12, 3:01 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Apr 12, 12:45 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Apr 6, 8:45 AM
Subscribers

Details

Diff Detail

Repository
rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

brooks added a subscriber: brooks.

LGTM

contrib/elftoolchain/readelf/readelf.c
2741 ↗(On Diff #53509)

Would this make more sense to the user as something like:

printf(" unknown(0x%jx)", (uintmax_t)val);
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Feb 1 2019, 6:18 PM
kib added inline comments.
contrib/elftoolchain/readelf/readelf.c
2736 ↗(On Diff #53509)

This is weird, why not do &= ~ ?

2741 ↗(On Diff #53509)

It would make more sense to print each unknown flag individually. At least I do find it more useful, from my experience with the Intel CPUID bits and DMAR capabilities reports.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
contrib/elftoolchain/readelf/readelf.c
2741 ↗(On Diff #53509)

Not a bad idea, I will keep it in mind for a followup