> -Original Message-
> From: David Anderson [mailto:dave...@linuxmail.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:48 PM
> To: Robinson, Paul
> Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Line table "no-op" sequence, leb length
>
> On 04/26/2018 10:04 AM, Paul Robinson via D
> >> One technique you haven't mentioned is to stretch out LEB128 numbers
> >> with extra 0x80's.
> >
> > Yeah, I kind of don't like abusing the LEB format like that. Maybe
> > for one or two bytes, but not arbitrarily long strings (as you note,
> > some consumers will decide it's corrupted data).
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:38 AM, wrote:
>> One technique you haven't mentioned is to stretch out LEB128 numbers
>> with extra 0x80's.
>
> Yeah, I kind of don't like abusing the LEB format like that. Maybe
> for one or two bytes, but not arbitrarily long strings (as you note,
> some consumers wi
> One technique you haven't mentioned is to stretch out LEB128 numbers
> with extra 0x80's.
Yeah, I kind of don't like abusing the LEB format like that. Maybe
for one or two bytes, but not arbitrarily long strings (as you note,
some consumers will decide it's corrupted data).
> When doing an in
> Recently I had a chat with one of the linker developers on my team.
> He was trying to work out how to insert what would effectively be a
> no-op sequence into the line table.
>
> One reason to do this is if a producer wanted to pad the line table
> for a compilation unit, either for alignment pu
