Added as Issue 240618.2 <https://dwarfstd.org/issues/240618.2.html>.
-cary On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 3:40 PM David Anderson via Dwarf-discuss < dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote: > BACKGROUND: > References are to DWARF5 unless otherwise indicated. > > > If a split-full CU uses DW_FORM_rnglistx > is a DW_AT_rnglists_base required? > Apparently not, though > in cases I have seen in object files are instances > of a single rnglist in .debug_rnglists.dwo . > The operative assumption is consumers will > simply assume zero as the (missing) > DW_AT_rnglists_base. > > Seen in llvm and gcc. > > The intent of this proposal is to get clarity. > > An alternative version could state > If a Split Full Compilation Unit > refers to .debug_rnglists.dwo > with DW_FORM_rnglistx > the CU DIE must have a DW_AT_rnglists_base > attribute. > > > PROPOSAL: > > At the end Sec F.1 Overview just before > Table F.1: > > If a Split Full Compilation Unit > refers to .debug_rnglists.dwo > with DW_FORM_rnglistx > and the correct DW_AT_rnglists_base > would be zero, the DW_AT_rnglists_base > may be omitted. > > David Anderson > -- > Dwarf-discuss mailing list > Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org > https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss >
-- Dwarf-discuss mailing list Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
