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
