Posted an issue to the dwarfstd.org to propose removing .debug_aranges, will follow up with a link here once it's accepted/posted publicly.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 2:02 PM Greg Clayton <clayb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
