> -----Original Message----- > From: David Anderson [mailto:dave...@linuxmail.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:48 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Line table "no-op" sequence, leb length > > On 04/26/2018 10:04 AM, Paul Robinson via Dwarf-Discuss wrote: > > I don't think it's abuse of the format at all, as long as you don't go > > over the reasonable maximum length. There's nothing in the spec that > > requires an LEB128 to be minimum length,
(That was Cary, not me, making the suggestion.) > > Ten bytes is the maximum sane leb length in libdwarf. > Would that fit the 'reasonable maximum length' criterion? > > If not ten ...what is the reasonable maximum? > Should the next version of DWARF specify a maximum length? > > DavidA. Anyone can propose anything. Ten covers the maximum 64-bit value. I could see a non-normative remark in the description of LEB128 being beneficial; not sure we'd want to make it a hard requirement. --paulr _______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
