Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] debug_aranges use and overhead

[David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss]

Given the discussion previously in this thread - does anyone have
particular objections to removing .debug_aranges? (in favor of/perhaps
with specific wording that /requires/ CU level ranges to be specified
(ie: it's not acceptable to have a subprogram with non-empty range in
a CU which doesn't cover that range) - so a consumer can look at the
CU and, if it has no ranges, conclude that it has no addresses covered
and skip the CU for address-related computation purposes)
_______________________________________________
Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org