Yeah, we talked some last year about formalizing this more into the -1
tombstone - I thought maybe Paul had proposed that for standardization, though
at a glance I don't see the proposal. It's probably somewhere there.
200609.1 Reserve an address value for “not present”
--paulr
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 4:29 PM Greg Clayton wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2021, at 1:12 PM, Paul Robinson via Dwarf-Discuss <
> dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote:
>
> Tom Russell could perhaps speak to this better, but my understanding is
> that our debugger guys like having .debug_aranges, beca
> On Mar 11, 2021, at 1:12 PM, Paul Robinson via Dwarf-Discuss
> wrote:
>
> Tom Russell could perhaps speak to this better, but my understanding is that
> our debugger guys like having .debug_aranges, because parsing the CU DIE does
> take that extra effort. I am unfamiliar with their code
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:12 PM wrote:
> Tom Russell could perhaps speak to this better, but my understanding is
> that our debugger guys like having .debug_aranges, because parsing the CU
> DIE does take that extra effort. I am unfamiliar with their code so I have
> to take their word on it. B
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:07 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:30:05AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> > > > (I went to look a bit further and GCC's .debug_loclists.dwo but it
> seems
> > > > there's something about it that llvm-dwarfdump can't understand - it
> on
Tom Russell could perhaps speak to this better, but my understanding is that
our debugger guys like having .debug_aranges, because parsing the CU DIE does
take that extra effort. I am unfamiliar with their code so I have to take
their word on it. But I can certainly imagine that probing hundre
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 5:48 AM wrote:
> Hopefully not to side-track things too much... maybe wants its own
> thread, if there's more to debate here.
>
Yeah, how about we spin it off into another thread (done here)
> >> For the case you suggested where it would be useful to keep the range
> >>
Hi David,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:30:05AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> > > (I went to look a bit further and GCC's .debug_loclists.dwo but it seems
> > > there's something about it that llvm-dwarfdump can't understand - it only
> > > prints a handful of rather mangled location lists... not sur
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:30:05AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> > Thanks! - is this proposed as a DWARF extension? I thought I remembered
> it
>
> 170427.1 I think. Note, what is emitted is different from what is being
> proposed, the prob
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:30:05AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> Thanks! - is this proposed as a DWARF extension? I thought I remembered it
170427.1 I think. Note, what is emitted is different from what is being
proposed, the problem with DW_LLE_* and DW_RLE_* is that they aren't easily
extensibl
Most local variables have locations that do require registers.
DW_OP_call_frame_cfa says it needs to push the value that defines the call
frame address which is typically based on the SP or FP depending on how things
were compiled, so you would need registers for this. DW_OP_fbreg is another
co
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:55 AM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:01:05AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> > +Mark in case he's got further context/perspective to share in the
> context
> > of this thread
>
> I haven't yet caught up on the mailinglist, but I think I und
Hopefully not to side-track things too much... maybe wants its own
thread, if there's more to debate here.
>> For the case you suggested where it would be useful to keep the range
>> list for the CU in the .o file, I think .debug_aranges is what you're
>> looking for.
>
> aranges has been off by d
Responding to Cary's question several exchanges back
>Do you remember why kept DW_AT_ranges in the skeleton CU even after we
>moved the range lists to the dwo? Was it the intent all along that the
>DW_AT_ranges attribute in the skeleton CU would reference the
>.debug_rnglists section, while DW_AT_
Hi David,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:01:05AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> +Mark in case he's got further context/perspective to share in the context
> of this thread
I haven't yet caught up on the mailinglist, but I think I understand
the context, it was a discussion Simon and I had about how to
On 3/10/21 10:38 PM, Archana Deshmukh wrote:
Thanks Michael for the response. Actually, I have only this much
information.
I need to get information related to
For global variables , I read the address "55b51afea000" from >
/proc//maps file. I use DW_OP_addr parameter to retrieve the ad
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:39 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:05:06AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> > What's your take on:
> >
> > 1) Fixing GDB to handle GCC's current output.
>
> I don't know what GDB will do, it is up to the GDB people.
>
> > 2) Fixing GCC to produce someth
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:05:06AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> What's your take on:
>
> 1) Fixing GDB to handle GCC's current output.
I don't know what GDB will do, it is up to the GDB people.
> 2) Fixing GCC to produce something maybe more standards conforming (to my
> mind, ideally: ranges o
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:32 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:07:27PM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:38 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 04:12:57PM -0800, David Blaikie via
> Dwarf-Discuss
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 1
+Mark in case he's got further context/perspective to share in the context
of this thread
One particular thing I'll pull out of the gdb-patches thread is:
"But the rnglists
(loclists) themselves can still use relocations. A large part of them
is non-shared addresses, so using indexes (into the .d
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:07:27PM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:38 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 04:12:57PM -0800, David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 4:02 PM Cary Coutant wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > So in the e
21 matches
Mail list logo
