On 04/24/14 01:38, Mark Wielaard wrote:
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
locatio
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
> >> location list. That would be non-
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 location list for an object, then how should
On 04/23/14 04:46, Mark Wielaard wrote:
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 then it lo
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 location list for an object, then how should
> > > it present to the consumer the same "not available" information?
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 then it looks like if the producer us
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 then it looks like if the producer uses a default location list
entry that information is no longer availabl
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
On 04/08/14 01:39, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Of course it doesn't need to use a DW_AT_start_scope, it can also use a
location list, generate an extra narrower lexical block that owns the
data object DIE, or maybe not generate any of that at all. The point was
that the intention of what the valid rang
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. Not because of
> >>> the either/
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 thread in this discussion).
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. Not because of
the either/or but about how to express the choices in DWARF. I don't
understand how fo
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 thread in this discussion). Since the range can be
read as if it was valid outside the range of
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 a DWARF Data Object DIE I ex
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 04/03/14 01:51, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 08:35 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
Perhaps you are confused by the following from Section 2.6 (which I think
is unambiguous):
1. Single location descriptions, which are a language independent
representation of addressing
> > 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 too. I am under the (wrong)
> impression that a default location list ent
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_external attribute on the data
> >>> object
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_external attribute on the data
object that has a single location expression to know whether the described
location is
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 valid/visible outside of th
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 valid/visible outside of the enclosing lexical scope?
Using that or some new flag (DW_AT_global_
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 of any object as long as its
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 of any object as long as its lifetime is either static or the
same as the lexical block that owns it, a
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 phrase "(provided that a
On 03/30/14 14:39, Mark Wielaard wrote:
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.
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
