Tom> However, the completeness property is probably more important for
Tom> by-name indices, where you don't want a single typo to destroy whatever
Tom> performance gain you get from an index.
Mark> That depends on whether you assume bad addresses won't normally happen
Mark> and won't cause regene
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
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 consumer to first assume that the
Cary> .debug_aranges table is complete, but
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 think it makes
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
> 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=100430.1
>
> debug_aranges and address-less CUs
> http://dwarfstd.o
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 issue
> 100430.1 but if address_s
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
> > and simplifying t
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 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 quick
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
