https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18025
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> --- Hi Alan, > This isn't a binutils problem. "rebase" isn't part of binutils, True. It would be best if the rebase program correctly updated the DWARF debug information itself. Although without relocs to guide it, it would be necessary to add a DWARF parser to the program. A small patch to the binutils, such as the one uploaded, would allow the tools to detect rebasing and allow for it, without requireing a rewrite of that tool. > and it is > your compiler that chooses whether dwarf debug info uses absolute or > relative addresses. Not really. The DWARF format does not support base-address relative addressing, which is what would be needed in this case. This problem could be fixed outside of the binutils, true. But it would be nice if the binutils could cope. Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
