At this point, performance is good enough for our use-case, no qualms from me.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 4:10 PM David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss < dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote: > 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 > -- Samy Al Bahra [http://repnop.org]
_______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
