On 8/31/20 1:03 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
I'd rather go with LLVM's existing interpretation - that strx encodings used in .dwo do not attempt to use str_offsets in the skeleton. But I wouldn't mind adding a str_offsets_base to the split full unit to make it clear - this would be consistent with rnglists, I think? (I think, in theory a rnglistx in a .dwo with a split full unit without a rnglists_base would use the rnglists_base (and .debug_rnglists non-dwo) in the executable, but if the split full unit has a rnglists_base, then the rnglistx in the split full unit use that base to find rnglists in debug_rnglists.dwo - arguably I'd say we might as well say the same thing about loclists, too, for consistency, though I don't have any use for skeleton location lists right now)
It seems to me that rnglists base and loclists_base in Split Full always reference the data in .debug_rnglists/.debug_loclists 3.1.3 Split Full Compilation Unit Entries The following attributes are not part of a split full compilation unit entry but instead are inherited (if present) from the corresponding skeleton compilation unit: DW_AT_low_pc, DW_AT_high_pc, DW_AT_ranges, DW_AT_stmt_list, DW_AT_comp_dir, DW_AT_str_offsets_base, DW_AT_addr_base and DW_AT_rnglists_base. I forgot that rnglists and loclists can use address x things so they could exist in a .dwo an so those too could potentially need/want different tables the .dwo vs the non-dwo. So now I'm thinking you are correct. This needs an ISSUE on on dwarfstd.org. You could file one. Or I could ask Michael Eager to modify what I filed today (probably not visible on Dwarstd.Org yet) to specify your approach as the better one. Your preference? DavidA. _______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
