As long as there is a DW_AT_ranges on the CU the is complete, that is good enough for LLDB. No one seems to consistently emit .debug_aranges these days so we definitely don't rely on it.
Greg > On Jun 14, 2022, at 1:10 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 _______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
