grimar added inline comments.
================ Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFUnit.cpp:351 + if (!addr_base) + addr_base = + cu_die.GetAttributeValueAsUnsigned(m_dwarf, this, DW_AT_GNU_addr_base, 0); ---------------- jankratochvil wrote: > Here I would find good also a comment: > ``` // pre-DWARF v5 attributes DW_AT_GNU_* applied only to the DWO unit while > DWARF v5 attributes DW_AT_* apply also to the main unit > ``` > Based on a [[ https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebugFission | DebugFission ]] comment: > ```Note the following difference between the current GCC implementation and > the DWARF v5 specification: In the current GCC implementation (based on DWARF > v4), if DW_AT_ranges is present, the offset into the ranges table is not > relative to the value given by DW_AT_ranges_base (i.e., DW_AT_ranges_base is > used only for references to the range table from the dwo sections). In DWARF > v5, the DW_AT_ranges_base attribute is used for all references to the range > table -- both from dwo sections and from skeleton compile units. > ``` > > I was also thinking to fetch the attributes just once by some `(m_version >= > 5 ? DW_AT_addr_base : DW_AT_GNU_addr_base)` but clang-7.0 does produce > DWARF-5 still using `DW_AT_GNU_addr_base`. > I rewrote the comment. > I was also thinking to fetch the attributes just once by some (m_version >= 5 > ? DW_AT_addr_base : DW_AT_GNU_addr_base) but clang-7.0 does produce DWARF-5 > still using DW_AT_GNU_addr_base. Yeah, it would not be safe to do such check I think. But it should not be an issue, in practice, I believe it should be fine to check both the attributes in order. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54751/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54751 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
