sgraenitz added inline comments.
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFUnit.cpp:431
const size_t num_ranges =
- die->GetAttributeAddressRanges(dwarf, this, ranges, false);
+ die->GetAttributeAddressRanges(dwarf, this, ranges, check_hi_lo_pc);
if (num_ranges > 0) {
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> sgraenitz wrote:
> > @JDevlieghere Thanks for your feedback!
> >
> > @everyone:
> > This parameter is, actually, one of the key questions in this review: If
> > there is no DW_AT_range attribute for the compile unit, can we safely fall
> > back to DW_AT_low/high_pc?
> I have seen DWARF where the DW_AT_ranges is incorrect and I have seen cases
> where the low pc is just set to zero and the high pc is set to the max
> address. So you might have many overlapping ranges between different CUs in
> the latter case. We might need to be more vigilant with high/low pc values
> though and that was the reason that we previously ignored high/low pc values.
> If the stuff is missing, it should index the DWARF and generate the address
> ranges table manually right? What was the reasoning behind this change?
I had a closer look at the individual fallbacks and you are right. After fixing
`SymbolFileDWARF::ParseCompileUnit()` we have the correct `CompileUnit`
pointers in `DWARFUnit::m_user_data` for all CUs. Thus, the below
`die->BuildAddressRangeTable(dwarf, this, debug_aranges);` now correctly
constructs the ranges! Great, with this we can keep `check_hi_lo_pc=false`.
I didn't notice this while testing, because of the following issue that kept my
tests failing: 2 of my LTO object's CUs have no code remaining after
optimization, so we step into the next fallback assuming 'a line tables only
situation' and eventually call `AddOSOARanges()`, which adds to `debug_aranges`
all entries of the CU's FileRangeMap with a zero offset.
Thus, my `debug_aranges` had 28000 entries too much and most requests would
continue to return `0` as before. For now I commented out the call below.
**What do you think is a good way to avoid this for empty CUs?
IIUC they should have no DW_AT_low/high_pc right? :-D**
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52375
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
