> Not to derail this thread, but another thing that might be worth checking is:
> should debug_aranges include non-code addresses. GCC's don't, Clang's do.
> Sounds like Clang's correct, but GCC is sort of the defacto standard DWARF
> producer, so might be worth getting an authoritative statemen
>> > Yep - unless someone has significant objections my plan is currently:
>> >
>> > Emit a v5 index with extension/non-standard extra column indexes
>> > (specifically: DW_SECT_LOC and 9 and DW_SECT_MACINFO at 10). I hope those
>> > can at least be reserved (like DW_SECT value 2 (originally DW_S
> The pre-v5 dwp format was just a prototype, accessed via
> --experimental GCC flags, and I don't think we ever intended to
> support mixing pre-v5 dwo files with standard v5 dwo files.
Sorry, I was wrong about the --experimental flags. The prototype did
get upstreamed under the -gsplit-dwarf fla
