Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Default Location List Entry Issue 130121.1

2014-04-08 Thread Michael Eager
On 04/08/14 01:39, Mark Wielaard wrote: Of course it doesn't need to use a DW_AT_start_scope, it can also use a location list, generate an extra narrower lexical block that owns the data object DIE, or maybe not generate any of that at all. The point was that the intention of what the valid rang

Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Default Location List Entry Issue 130121.1

2014-04-08 Thread Mark Wielaard
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 09:07 -0700, Michael Eager wrote: > On 04/07/14 05:28, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 08:26 -0700, Michael Eager wrote: > >> On 04/03/14 01:51, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >>> You are correct that I am confused about this definition. Not because of > >>> the either/

Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Default Location List Entry Issue 130121.1

2014-04-08 Thread Mark Wielaard
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 08:30 -0700, Michael Eager wrote: > On 04/07/14 03:04, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > OK. It would be good to mention that explicitly (and how to make clear > > how to distinguish local variables from global ones, but that is the > > subject of the other thread in this discussion).

Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Interaction between aranges and unit proposals

2014-04-08 Thread Mark Wielaard
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 11:32 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Yes, all true. So you have to either generate (empty) arange headers for > all the TUs and PUs or move the no-ranges units somewhere else for the > consumer to be able to check the aranges table is complete. > > Personally I think it makes