Stick to plain text, not HTML, if you want to reach the list. On 03/16/2017 03:44 PM, SASHA NICOLAS DA ROCHA PINHEIRO wrote: > I had that before, and it didn't work, then I empirically changed to > next_cu_off because it contained the same offset I was supposed to get > when I compared to the libdwarf execution.
What you have called cu_die_off is *not* a die offset! In libdwarf.h that argument is called next_cu_header_offset, which is why it has the same value as the next_cu_off you're getting from libdw. > We already discarded the option of using dwarf_offdie_types since > previously, with libdwarf, it was passed true to: That's fine and correct. You shouldn't use dwarf_offdie_types now, I was trying to preempt a future problem. Sorry for adding confusion.
