dejagnu test names environment-insensitive
Mark Wielaard (4):
Add support for version 9 .gdb_index
gen-copyright-years.sh: Handle mjw copyright
upload-release.sh: Add gpg signing and uploading the signature (.asc) files
Bump version to 0.16
Sam James (1):
testsuite: fix finding gdb
Sourceware infrastructure community updates for Q1 2025
Sourceware has provided the infrastructure for core toolchain
and developer tools projects for more than 25 years.
https://sourceware.org/sourceware-25-roadmap.html
Over the last couple of years, Sourceware has transformed from a
purely volu
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 01:44:23AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> The Sourceware Project Leadership Committee would like to know who our
> users are, which hosted projects they feel part of, what services they
> rely on and what the priorities should be for new initiatives.
&
The Sourceware Project Leadership Committee would like to know who our
users are, which hosted projects they feel part of, what services they
rely on and what the priorities should be for new initiatives.
https://nextcloud.sfconservancy.org/apps/forms/s/xmGgmJFzSb2FZNd58cXMtAZp
The survey will ru
Sourceware infrastructure community updates for Q4 2024
Sourceware has provided the infrastructure for core toolchain and
developer tools projects for more than 25 years.
https://sourceware.org/sourceware-25-roadmap.html
The last couple of years it has transformed from a purely volunteer
into a p
Hi,
The Default Lower Bound for DW_LANG_Fortran18 on
https://dwarfstd.org/languages.html is listed as 0.
I cannot find a reference for Fortran 2018 changing the default lower
bound for arrays from 1 to 0. I am a Fortran noob. But I think this
might be a typo and it should really be 1?
Cheers,
Ma
Hi Jakub,
On Wed, 2024-11-20 at 16:24 +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Dwarf-discuss
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 03:09:02PM +0100, Alexandra Petlanova Hajkova via
> Dwarf-discuss wrote:
> > GCC15 (to be released in April/May2025) will default to C23 instead of the
> > C17.
> > There is a new way to
Sourceware infrastructure community updates for Q3 2024
Sourceware has provided the infrastructure for the core toolchain and
developer tools for more than 25 years.
https://sourceware.org/sourceware-25-roadmap.html
The last couple of years it has transformed from a purely volunteer
into a profes
Hi,
Section 6.2.4.1 Standard Content Descriptions under 1. DW_LNCT_path has
the following description on using DW_FORM_strx forms:
In a .debug_line.dwo section, the forms DW_FORM_strx, DW_FORM_strx1,
DW_FORM_strx2, DW_FORM_strx3 and DW_FORM_strx4 may also be used.
These refer into the .d
Sourceware infrastructure community updates for Q1 2024
A summary of news about Sourceware, the Free Software hosting project
for core toolchain and developer tools, from the last 3 months.
- Sourceware now has an official donation page
- StarFive VisionFive-2 RISC-V boards for builder.sourceware
Sourceware infrastructure community updates for Q4 2023
- 6 months with the Software Freedom Conservancy
- Sourceware @ Fosdem
- OSUOSL provides extra larger arm64 and x86_64 buildbot servers
- No more From rewriting for patches mailinglists
= 6 months with the Software Freedom Conservancy
Sourc
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:02:08PM -0700, Cary Coutant wrote:
> We agreed in the April 17 meeting to make the working copies of the DWARF
> spec public.
>
> I've added a DWARF 6 section to the home page, with a link to the working
> draft snapshots, and I've added DWARF 6 to the downloads pag
Hi Ben,
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 01:32:05PM -0700, Ben Woodard via Dwarf-discuss wrote:
> Can we please add a link to the current evolving DWARF6 standard
> working draft somewhere on https://dwarfstd.org/index.html
>
> I was wanting to show someone that we have the current working copy
> that we
Hi Arrigo,
On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 11:40 +0200, Arrigo Marchiori via Dwarf-discuss
wrote:
> the dwarfstd.org homepage, under "DWARF Introduction", contains a
> broken link labeled "Introduction to the DWARF Debugging Format".
>
> The link points to:
> https://dwarfstd.org/doc/Debugging-using-DWARF-
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2023/may/15/sourceware-joins-sfc/
After various discussions and lots of positive feedback [1] [2] [3] [4]
Software Freedom Conservancy and Sourceware proudly announce that
Sourceware today joins SFC as a member project!
As the fiscal host of Sourceware, Software Fre
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 05:21:20PM -0700, David Anderson via Dwarf-discuss
wrote:
> On 3/24/23 13:56, Ben Woodard via Dwarf-discuss wrote:
> >Tangential to Scott's request, one of the requests from the tool
> >developer community that I work with is to add a new wiki article
> >which lists al
shortlog =
Lv Ying (1):
Fix handling readelf following links by default
Mark Wielaard (11):
Mark and init shstrtab[_len] and const in optimize_multifile
Workaround binutils readelf following and printing alt file.
Print abbrev or DIE offset for Unknown DWARF error message.
Remove double
Hi,
We discussed 170427.3 Extending loclists with common sublists in the
last meeting. http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=170427.3
This issue was original part of a group of proposals to introduce
Location Views. Location views allow the user to observe multiple
program states at the same pr
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
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 Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:55:32PM +, Robinson, Paul wrote:
> > Both DWARF v4 and v5 say "The value 0 indicates that no source file
> > has been specified." I assumed that was deliberate, but maybe it was
> > an oversight. But given that both versions say the same I would avoid
> > using zero t
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 04:27:16PM +, Robinson, Paul wrote:
> > Yes. Please do publish the document somewhere. It would be interesting
> > to know exactly what is being said to be inconsistent. As far as I
> > know the issue of the file index defaulting to one and not having a
> > way to refer
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:46:55AM -0400, Eric Christopher via Dwarf-Discuss
wrote:
> "This margin is too narrow to contain..." ;)
>
> I'd like to see the doc - it's easy to believe we've gotten something wrong
> here.. Might be good to fix this as textual edits rather than waiting on a
> fu
On Thu, 2018-04-26 at 11:01 +0200, Mark Wielaard via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
> I just noticed that unlike in vendor defined macro descriptions, the
> vendor defined line descriptions (6.2.4.2) don't list DW_FORM_strp_sup.
> as an allowed data form. Was that deliberate? Or should I file
Hi,
I just noticed that unlike in vendor defined macro descriptions, the
vendor defined line descriptions (6.2.4.2) don't list DW_FORM_strp_sup.
as an allowed data form. Was that deliberate? Or should I file an issue
to get it added?
Thanks,
Mark
___
D
DW_FORM_ref_sup and DW_FORM_line_strp to the list
of allowed forms at the end of point 4 opcode_operands_table.
Subject: Add DW_AT_encoding to the attribute list for
DW_TAG_enumeration_type
Name: Mark Wielaard
Email: m...@redhat.com
Section: Appendix A Page: 255
Type: Improvement
It i
I have been working on elfutils DWARFv5 support based on what GCC7
implements and the current public draft. I haven't had time to implement
everything. But since the public comment period was kept short I thought
it would be nice to at least document some of the things that I stumbled
over. Hopefu
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 07:36 -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 11/26/14 02:23, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Looks like Tom's reply never made the dwarf mailinglist.
> > So here it is to make the archive on this issue complete.
> >
> > On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 09:02 -0700
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 13:22 +, Daniel Gutson wrote:
> What about new C++11 keywords? Would a debugger cli interpreter be
> helped by this datum in case the user enters some of these keywords?
Yes, that is the intention. If there are different language variants
that have different keywords or w
Looks like Tom's reply never made the dwarf mailinglist.
So here it is to make the archive on this issue complete.
On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 09:02 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Michael> Issue 120628.1 mentions a need to distinguish between C++03 and other
> Michael> versions of C++. If you believe that
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 08:13 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/08/2014 06:57 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > I also had a question about issue 120628.1 which proposes to add
> > DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03. The current DWARFv4 DW_LANG_C_plus_plus says it
> > is for ISO C++:1998. A
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 16:55 +0800, 21310171 wrote:
> Complie a simple case , such as hello.c, with the "-g" parameter to
> compiler. And use readelf -S tools to analyze the sections of the output elf
> file, we see .eh_frame and .debug_frame section.
> .eh_frame and .debug_frame both are somet
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 08:13 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Actually, it's not clear to me why we need multiple standard levels at
> all. What differences are there that aren't directly expressed by new
> TAGs and such?
It is mainly for consumers that allow users to interact with the program
desc
s far as I know C++03 (unlike C++11 and C++14)
didn't add any language changes, so I think for producers and consumers
C++98 and C++03 look similar. When would consumers expect to see
DW_LANG_C_plus_plus and when DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03?
Thanks,
Mark
Subject: c++14 DW_LANG constant
Name: Mar
Hi John,
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 14:58 -0400, John DelSignore wrote:
> IMHO, the compiler should be picking a canonical order for the
> qualifiers in the DWARF, just like it does for name mangling:
>
> % cat xxx.cxx
> void fpcvi(const volatile int*){}
> void fpvci(volatile const int*){}
> % g++ -g
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 11:04 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 09/25/14 08:18, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > This came up on the gcc list when extending the number of DWARF type
> > qualifier modifiers that are handled. But the issue can be shown with
> > just const and volatile.
Hi,
This came up on the gcc list when extending the number of DWARF type
qualifier modifiers that are handled. But the issue can be shown with
just const and volatile.
The issue is that there is no ordering constraint on the type qualifier
modifier tags (they can appear in any order), but the typ
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 12:48 +, Robinson, Paul wrote:
> > There are I think two ways to solve this if we want to make DWARF5 more
> > "future proof" (by which I mean, make it easier for producers to add
> > vendor qualified type extensions and for consumers to easily ignore a
> > type TAG that i
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 14:07 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I'll try to prototype an implementation for GCC this week and see what
> it looks like in practice so we can discuss things a bit more
> concretely.
s/this week/next month/ :) I finally did some prototypes for some of the
DW
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 16:33 -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Very interesting proposal! Thanks for putting it together.
Thanks. BTW part of the reason to propose this was the new gcc/gdb
expression support for C as recently posted to the gcc and gdb lists:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/
On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 15:29 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Another thing added in C11 is the _Alignas specifier through which a
> user can request to have a type or object that is stricter than the
> default alignment for the type of object. Existing compilers like GCC
> already al
Hi,
Another thing added in C11 is the _Alignas specifier through which a
user can request to have a type or object that is stricter than the
default alignment for the type of object. Existing compilers like GCC
already allow users to specify the alignment of types and variables
through implementat
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 12:11 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I was looking at the D.4 Member Function Example and noticed it flags
> member functions that don't return a value with a DW_AT_type pointing to
> a DW_TAG_unspecified_type with name "void". I haven't encount
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 09:01 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Mark> To make it possible to quickly see whether an address (range) is covered
> Mark> by an ELF file containing DWARF information two proposals were made:
>
> I finally read through this thread.
>
> Cary> I think it's fine for a con
Hi Michael,
On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 06:54 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 04/23/14 04:46, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >> An alternate might be to include a location list entry for the range
> >> where the object is not available and have that contain a zero-length
> >> loc
On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 08:49 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:46:30PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > So if a producer wants to take advantage of a default location list
> > > > entry to encode a smaller locat
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 10:07 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 04/22/14 03:57, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> > Assuming the consumer is interested in "the object is not available for
> > the portion of the range that is not covered" property of the location
> > list
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 13:46 +, Robinson, Paul wrote:
> Consider a subprogram with a local stack-allocated variable. In the
> simple case, a simple location description gives that location, and
> of course it's valid for the address-range of the containing subprogram.
>
> The compile
Hi,
I was looking at the D.4 Member Function Example and noticed it flags
member functions that don't return a value with a DW_AT_type pointing to
a DW_TAG_unspecified_type with name "void". I haven't encountered
producers that do this and it seems 5.5.7 Member Function Entries imply
that DW_TAG_s
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. N
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 thre
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
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/or but about how to express the choices in DWARF. I don't
> > understand how for
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 13:46 +, Robinson, Paul wrote:
> > > A default location list entry (as proposed in 130121.1) gives the
> > location
> > > of an object for address values which are not otherwise specified in
> > the
> > > location list.
> >
> > Maybe an example of this would be helpful to
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 10:21 -0700, Cary Coutant wrote:
> > To make it possible to quickly see whether an address (range) is covered
> > by an ELF file containing DWARF information two proposals were made:
> >
> > aranges does not have debug info length
> > http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=10
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 08:35 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 04/02/14 03:43, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 18:42 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> >> On 04/01/14 13:54, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >>
> >>> What about using the presence of a DW_AT_exte
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 12:18 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Maybe the solution is to have an alternate .debug_aranges header just
> for empty units that is as small as possible? Or reuse the existing
> header fields as "flag"? Maybe have the proposed header format of issu
On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 18:42 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 04/01/14 13:54, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> > What about using the presence of a DW_AT_external attribute on the data
> > object that has a single location expression to know whether the described
> > location is
Hi Eric,
On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 16:51 -0700, Eric Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Is there a way to reconcile these proposals so they keep the benefit of
> > both (quick/complete address scan without having to load/parse bulk data
>
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 03:14:51PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 03/31/14 10:59, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> >My interpretation comes from 2.6 Location Descriptions, item 1. Single
> >location descriptions which says "They are sufficient for describing the
> >location
Hi,
I have been pondering the various aranges proposals and how they
interact with the change to merge the units proposal. It looks like the
intent of two proposals is diminished by two other proposals.
To make it possible to quickly see whether an address (range) is covered
by an ELF file contai
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 08:32 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> I'll pass your comments on to the DWARF Committee.
Thanks. I also filed a comment for enhancement as proposal for DWARF5
now through http://dwarfstd.org/Comment.php to make sure the idea
doesn't get lost (and since the deadline for new DWAR
On Sun, 2014-03-30 at 21:06 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> At first I didn't file an enhancement request since there are probably
> no changes in how to interpret the meaning of DWARF attributes. But for
> debuggers it is needed information to be able to correctly handle
> express
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 08:39 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 03/30/14 14:39, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > I was reading the DWARF5 proposal Issue 130121.1 Default Location List
> > Entry http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=130121.1 and was wondering
> > how to interpret the p
Hi,
I was reading the DWARF5 proposal Issue 130121.1 Default Location List
Entry http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=130121.1 and was wondering
how to interpret the phrase "(provided that address is within the
containing module)" from the introduction.
In the actual text of the proposal there
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 15:18 -0700, Cary Coutant wrote:
> > The proposed DWARF5 suggestion "dynamic properties of types: reference
> > interpretation" http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100805.1 says:
> > [...]
> We did discuss this at the September meeting, but the issue page
> didn't get upda
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 09:16 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 09/25/13 03:38, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Asking because I was wondering if it would make sense to propose
> > DW_LANG_C11 (ISO/IEC 9899:2011) for DWARF5?
>
> Yes, if there are differences in meaning for DWARF attr
Hi,
The proposed DWARF5 suggestion "dynamic properties of types: reference
interpretation" http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100805.1 says:
Accepted with modification -- Sept. 18, 2012
The second bullet in Section 2.19, pg. 40, reads as follows:
-
Hi,
Reading the DWARF5 proposal debug_aranges and address-less CUs
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100430.2 I saw it said:
"Rejected -- Recommend adding this as "best practice" on the wiki."
I rather see this in the standard as non-normative text to be honest,
but at least documenting thi
doesn't have an issue number yet:
Subject: Clarify DW_AT_byte_size usage with DW_TAG_enumeration
Name: Mark Wielaard
Email: m...@redhat.com
Section: 5.7 Page: 96
Type: Clarification
As discussed on the dwarf mailinglist in the "DW_TAG_enumeration with
DW_AT_type and DW_AT_byte_si
Hi,
I was adding the underlying type to an enumeration in a DWARF producer
(GCC) and wanted to drop the DW_AT_byte_size in case we have such an
underlying DW_AT_type. Since it looks redundant in that case. The
DW_AT_byte_size of the DW_TAG_enumeration should be equal to the size of
the underlying
Hi,
I was reading the suggestion for adding MD5 digests to the .debug_line
program header. http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=130701.1
Adding more attributes of files seems like a good thing, but as
specified this isn't extensible without changing the version number
again and defining new fo
Hi,
I saw the following issue which proposed DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 and
DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_11. It appears to have been accepted for DWARF4
according to this page:
http://www.dwarfstd.org/Issues.php?type=closed3
But apparently didn't make it into the actual DWARF4 spec.
Now I notice DWARF4 came o
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 08:57 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 08:32 +0200, Attila Csosz wrote:
>
> > How to interpret/read the null entries in .debug_loc?
> >
> > For example
> >
> > 00016462 c0028510 c002851f (DW_OP_reg2 (r2)
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 08:32 +0200, Attila Csosz wrote:
> How to interpret/read the null entries in .debug_loc?
>
> For example
>
> 00016462 c0028510 c002851f (DW_OP_reg2 (r2))
> 00016462
> 00016475
> 000164a1 c00114b4 c00114b8 (DW_OP_breg13 (r13): 0)
> 000164a1 c00114b8 c0011
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 08:58 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 06/24/2013 07:42 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Is there a location for the original issues as submitted?
> > Is there a diff between versions of issues when they get revised?
> > Is there a way to keep track of any i
Hi,
I was looking for the DW_OP_implicit_pointer issue write up since it is
the best description of the current DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer as
currently output by GCC. But the location changed. It used to be
available at: http://www.dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100831.1
Apparently the new locat
On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 19:32 +0530, Arun KS wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 15:14 +0530, Arun KS wrote:
> [31] member
>name "vinayak_i"
>
On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 15:14 +0530, Arun KS wrote:
> Hello Guys,
>
> I m not able to decode form DW_FORM_block1. I am able to read till
> attr data_member_location(marked with < below.).
> The form is comming as DW_FORM_block1. So I went and read debug_info,
> which gave me 0x2. So this mea
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 08:42:04AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> >For the elfutils project (https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/), which
> >includes libdw a DWARF consumer library used by programs like perf,
> >systemtap and the dwarves tools, I wrote up a wiki page with all the
> >DWARF extensions k
Hi,
For the elfutils project (https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/), which
includes libdw a DWARF consumer library used by programs like perf,
systemtap and the dwarves tools, I wrote up a wiki page with all the
DWARF extensions known to the library:
https://fedorahosted.org/elfutils/wiki/DwarfExte
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:56:34PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Would the committee consider a faster-track number-assignment process,
> kind of like IANA, for proposals that do not constitute material
> structural changes to DWARF, but mere non-conflicting assignment of
> magic numbers?
Yeah
Hi,
I noticed GCC already outputs the proposed DW_LANG_Go from
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=101014.1
I assume there are other such smaller/constants changes that are just OK
without needing a major DWARF spec revision. Is there a list of such
preliminary accepted issues/updates/constant
83 matches
Mail list logo
