https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28294
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> --- (In reply to Eli Boling from comment #0) > In dwarf_aggregate_size.c, the helper function array_size unconditionally > uses dwarf_formsdata to obtain the value of the DW_AT_upper_bound attribute > for array types. In many cases, this will return a negative value for C > arrays that have positive upper bounds, causing the function to return a > failure value, which propagates up through dwarf_aggregate_size. > > This is an exemplary type (via readelf -w): > <1><90e>: Abbrev Number: 37 (DW_TAG_array_type) > <90f> DW_AT_type : <0x118> > <2><913>: Abbrev Number: 11 (DW_TAG_subrange_type) > <914> DW_AT_type : <0x2c> > <918> DW_AT_upper_bound : 249 > > And the same type, via eu-readelf --debug-dump=info: > [ 90e] array_type abbrev: 37 > type (ref4) [ 118] > [ 913] subrange_type abbrev: 11 > type (ref4) [ 2c] > upper_bound (data1) 249 > > If dwarf_aggregate_size is called on this type, when it gets the upper_bound > attribute, it will get a value of -7, and fail. For other array sizes, this > will work. > > Looking around a bit, the closest discussion I could find on the topic was > this one about signed vs unsigned interpretation of array bounds back in > 2005: > http://www.dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=020702.1 > > I exchanged emails with Mark Wielaard on this, and he indicated that this > did appear to be a bug, but he wasn't sure yet where the correct fix would > be. Could you try the attached patch? I don't know if it works, it depends on the subrange_type at [2c]. If it doesn't work, could you post the full debug-dump or attach a test binary? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
