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, 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 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
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
> 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
