[Bug 481034] Review Request: coccinelle - Semantic patching for Linux (spatch)
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jan 22 20:34:47 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481034
--- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> 2009-01-22 15:34:45 EDT ---
Thanks, I'm going to try looking at this tomorrow. But on the
subject of stripping binaries, firstly you can tell if the
binary was damaged by strip by looking at the end of the binary:
$ cp /usr/bin/spatch .
$ hexdump -C spatch | tail -3
00254d50 42 00 00 0c 66 43 52 43 53 00 00 10 58 00 00 00 |B...fCRCS...X...|
00254d60 05 43 61 6d 6c 31 39 39 39 58 30 30 38 |.Caml1999X008|
00254d6d
Notice the Caml1999... signature there.
$ strip spatch
$ hexdump -C spatch | tail -3
00040940 ee 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |................|
00040950 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |................|
00040960
And notice that it's gone after stripping, and the binary
no longer works:
$ ./spatch
No bytecode file specified.
Secondly, this method of attaching bytecode to binaries (a) sucks,
(b) is deprecated upstream, and (c) we should build a native code
(non-bytecode) version of spatch for Fedora which bypasses the
entire issue.
So the whole thing is a big bug, and I need to rebuild this
RPM, with any luck tomorrow. Although the RPM above will work
for people who just want to try out coccinelle.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list