clayborg added a comment. In D71487#1820074 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71487#1820074>, @probinson wrote:
> In D71487#1791824 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71487#1791824>, @clayborg wrote: > > > BTW: is used to be that both DW_AT_low_pc and DW_AT_high_pc would be set to > > zero when a function was dead stripped. This was back when both the low and > > high pc used DW_FORM_addr (a file address). But then DWARF changed such > > that DW_AT_high_pc could be encoded as a data form: DW_FORM_data1, > > DW_FORM_data2, DW_FORM_data4, or DW_FORM_data8. This is used to mean it is > > an offset from the low PC. Seems the linkers now didn't have a relocation > > for the DW_AT_high_pc so they couldn't zero it out. This is sad because we > > can end up with many functions at address zero that didn't get linked, and > > if zero is a valid address, then our DWARF contains a bunch of useless info > > that only hides which function is the real function for address zero. > > > One solution, which we do in Sony, is to make the linker fix up undefined > references to be -1 instead of 0 (at least, in the .debug_* sections). > That's more obviously an invalid address. Doesn't help with existing objects > in the wild but I'd like to keep that idea in the air as a forward > evolutionary step. I second this motion and would love to see this in more linkers. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71487/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71487 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
