On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 02:51:43PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > We only handles DW_FORM_sdata as a signed form, but DW_FORM_implicit_const > is also signed by default. For DW_AT_const_value we can do a little better. > GCC encodes some const_values with signed forms, even though the type > is unsigned. Lookup the (base) type of the DIE and display the const value > as their (signed) type/size (if we can determine that). > > Add a new testcase run-readelf-const-values.sh that shows that. > With the new testcase the const values would come out as follows: > > name (string) "i" > const_value (implicit_const) 18446744073709551615 > name (string) "j" > const_value (implicit_const) 18446744073709551615 > > name (string) "sc" > const_value (sdata) -2 > name (string) "uc" > const_value (sdata) -2 > name (string) "ss" > const_value (sdata) -16 > name (string) "us" > const_value (sdata) -16 > name (string) "si" > const_value (sdata) -3 > name (string) "ui" > const_value (sdata) -94967296 > name (string) "sl" > const_value (sdata) -1 > name (string) "ul" > const_value (sdata) -1 > > With this patch they show up as: > > name (string) "i" > const_value (implicit_const) -1 > name (string) "j" > const_value (implicit_const) -1 > > name (string) "sc" > const_value (sdata) -2 > name (string) "uc" > const_value (sdata) 254 (-2) > name (string) "ss" > const_value (sdata) -16 > name (string) "us" > const_value (sdata) 65520 (-16) > name (string) "si" > const_value (sdata) -3 > name (string) "ui" > const_value (sdata) 4200000000 (-94967296) > name (string) "sl" > const_value (sdata) -1 > name (string) "ul" > const_value (sdata) 18446744073709551615 (-1) > > (for signed/unsigned int char, short and long)
Pushed to master.
