# `DW_AT_rnglists_base` missing ## BACKGROUND
If a split-full CU uses `DW_FORM_rnglistx`, is a `DW_AT_rnglists_base` required? Apparently not, since in cases I have seen in object files with a single rnglist in `.debug_rnglists.dwo` there is no `DW_AT_rnglists_base`. The operative assumption seems to be that consumers will simply assume size-of-rnglists-header of the initial `.debug_rnglists.dwo` contribution as the (missing) `DW_AT_rnglists_base`. Similarly for .debug_loclists[.dwo] and DW_AT_loclists_base The intent of this proposal is to allow this common practice as correct dwarf. ## PROPOSAL Section 7.28 Range List Table Following the last paragraph before Section 7.9: > If a Split Full Compilation Unit > refers to `.debug_rnglists.dwo` > with `DW_FORM_rnglistx` > and the correct `DW_AT_rnglists_base` > would be size-of-rnglists-header > of the initial contribution to > `.debug_rnglists.dwo`, > the `DW_AT_rnglists_base` > may be omitted. > In a dwp package file (See F.3 Package File Example) > a `.debug_cu_index` or `.debug_tu_index` > entry `DW_SECT_RNGLISTS` makes rnglists base unnecessary > by providing the offset of the contribution to >`.debug_rnglists.dwo`. Section 7.29 Location List Table Following the last paragraph before Section 7.30: > If a Split Full Compilation Unit > refers to `.debug_loclists.dwo` > with `DW_FORM_loclistx` > and the correct `DW_AT_loclists_base` > would be size-of-loclists-header > of the initial contribution to > `.debug_loclists.dwo`, > the `DW_AT_loclists_base` > may be omitted. > In a dwp package file (See F.3 Package File Example) > a `.debug_cu_index` or `.debug_tu_index` > entry `DW_SECT_LOCLISTS` makes loclists base unnecessary > by providing the offset of the contribution to >`.debug_loclists.dwo`. This is a major revision of the previous text. David Anderson -- Dwarf-discuss mailing list Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
