------- Comment #5 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-11 22:52 -------
It's possible that the message from dsymutil is misleading:
Is this correct ?
I'm very new to dwarf - but it looks like the DW_AT_upper_bound is missing a
value?
.byte 0x6 # uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x10d) DW_TAG_base_type)
.byte 0x4 # DW_AT_byte_size
.byte 0x5 # DW_AT_encoding
.ascii "int\0" # DW_AT_name
.byte 0x7 # uleb128 0x7; (DIE (0x114) DW_TAG_array_type)
.long 0x10d # DW_AT_type
.long 0x127 # DW_AT_sibling
.byte 0x8 # uleb128 0x8; (DIE (0x11d) DW_TAG_subrange_type)
.long 0x127 # DW_AT_type
.long 0xf5 # DW_AT_upper_bound
.byte 0x0 # end of children of DIE 0x114
.byte 0x9 # uleb128 0x9; (DIE (0x127) DW_TAG_base_type)
--
iains at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43254
