On 1/13/25 11:31, David Blaikie wrote:
I still think the commentary on the indexes isn't quite right. They're
separate from this issue - you'd still need the rnglists base, or have
to assume that it's sizeof(header), to go that far into the region
described by the index.
The index essentially ma
On 1/13/25 11:35, David Blaikie via Dwarf-discuss wrote:
I guess Jon is referring to the 16th field in the header, "directories
(sequence of directory names)" which uses the same encoding system (but
a separate format field, so the directories can have different active
fields than the files) a
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:45 AM David Anderson via Dwarf-discuss <
dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote:
> On 1/13/25 07:17, John DelSignore via Dwarf-discuss wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Section 6.2 (Line Number Information) of the DWARF 5 spec does not seem
> to constrain which DW_LNCT content typ
I still think the commentary on the indexes isn't quite right. They're
separate from this issue - you'd still need the rnglists base, or have to
assume that it's sizeof(header), to go that far into the region described
by the index.
The index essentially makes a DWP look like a bunch of separate D
On 1/13/25 07:17, John DelSignore via Dwarf-discuss wrote:
Hi,
Section 6.2 (Line Number Information) of the DWARF 5 spec does not seem to
constrain which DW_LNCT content types are valid for directory entries, or at
least I couldn't find where it does.
Are DW_LNCT_directory_index, DW_LNCT_time
Hi,
Section 6.2 (Line Number Information) of the DWARF 5 spec does not seem to
constrain which DW_LNCT content types are valid for directory entries, or at
least I couldn't find where it does.
Are DW_LNCT_directory_index, DW_LNCT_timestamp, DW_LNCT_size, and/or
DW_LNCT_MD5 content types valid
