[Bug 481034] Review Request: coccinelle - Semantic patching for Linux (spatch)

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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.