e's some other, more compelling, reason?), then we need
> to make sure the proposal isn't assuming a static location.
Agreed.
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat
--
Dwarf-discuss mailing list
Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
ze the vtable: it
points to a structure that is in the current stack frame (between $rsp
and $rbp).
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat
--
Dwarf-discuss mailing list
Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
Hi,
For the record, here is a status update on this issue:
On 06/10/2014 11:30 AM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote:
Unfortunately, we do not store the value of the upper bounds in the
record (nor anywhere else): the only way to get it at runtime is to
compute it from the discriminants.
After
nts
are the only runtime arguments that can determine the array bounds, so
there is no risk that the bound expressions would produce different
results sometimes.
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat
___
Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwa
e supposed to behave).
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat
___
Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
now how to
translate trees from the Ada frontend into DWARF opcodes. I started this
thread in order to know how it should do so.
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat
___
Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo
in order to compute the bounds of VLAs *without* descriptors.
(see the end of my 05/14/2014 mail)
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat
___
Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
to me), though. So
crafting DWARF expressions for the DW_AT_{lower,uppper}_bound attributes
looks reasonably easy to me: a sequence of regular register/stack
operations and computations on them should be sufficient.
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat
___
Dwarf-Discus
t; field and the "b" one is
not constant, and I can't find a way to compute it from the
DW_AT_upper_bound attribute of the DW_TAG_subrange_type DIE
corresponding to "b". The point is that this offset depends on the "n"
field and if we had
ith "optimized out" objects (that obviously cannot be referenced with a
real pointer), it fits more what we would need to do here than
DW_OP_push_object_address. Using it would look more like a hack to me,
however...
[1] http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100831.1
--
Pierr
o do when provided a DW_OP_push_object_address... hence my question in
this thread. ;-)
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat
___
Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-11/msg00321.html
[2] https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2011-03/msg00021.html
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat
___
Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
epend on discriminants!
I tried to look at the implementation of DW_OP_push_object_address in
GDB, but it looks like it's not implemented yet. What do you think about
its expected behavior? And if I cannot use this operation for such array
bound expressions, what should I use?
Tha
13 matches
Mail list logo