On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 10:44, Robinson, Paul wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > > A single location description (which can be either simple or composite
> > > location descriptions) has the lifetime of its closest containing scope.
> > > The case we
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 17:06, Robinson, Paul via Dwarf-discuss
wrote:
> A single location description (which can be either simple or composite
> location descriptions) has the lifetime of its closest containing scope.
> The case we care about here is when that scope is a subprogram, and
> therefo
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 10:13, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> Hi, Andrew -
>
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:05:04AM -0500, Andrew Cagney via Dwarf-Discuss
> wrote:
> > [...]
> > This means that:
> > - for simple objects, local functions; and
> > - with link-time-
Part of a typical Application Binary Interface is to specify the
function calling convention. Several uses are:
- ensuring function calls across interface boundaries work (function
in one object calls function in second object)
- the debugger supplementing the debug information describing the
loc
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 16:56, Jakub Jelinek via Dwarf-Discuss
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 08:58:42AM -0800, Cary Coutant via Dwarf-Discuss
> wrote:
> > And that's another reason why on PA-RISC and Itanium we have the rule
> > that the unwind info for the PC of the instruction following the
>>> Do you mean that such an ABI would take a DW_OP_piece from a register
>>> according to the "structure parameter passing" rule *whenever* the
>>> composite location describes an object with structure type? But this
>>> would be wrong, wouldn't it? For instance, modern compilers may
>>> optimiz
>>> The definition of DW_OP_piece differs, though: "[...] the placement of
>>> the piece within that register is defined by the ABI."
>>
>> Right.
>
> Right, and...? Is it intentional that DW_OP_piece(n)" is not
> necessarily equivalent to "DW_OP_bit_piece(8*n, 0)?
There is no intent.
>> For ins
On 12 December 2016 at 09:28, Andreas Arnez wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09 2016, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
>> Here's my take on this.
>
> Thanks!
>
>>> On Dec 9, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>>>
>>> Although I've already created public comments for (most of) this,
>>> Michael Eager suggested tha
