On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:03:55PM +, Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro wrote:
> About the *ops returned from dwarf_frame_register():
> Is it correct to say that if we don't get a DW_OP_stack_value as the
> last operation, the value on top of the stack will always be a
> memory address? Meaning you must
0x970
restore r30 (reg30)
restore r29 (reg29)
def_cfa r31 (reg31) at offset 0
nop
nop
nop
nop
nop
nop
nop
From: Mark Wielaard
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 4:09 PM
To: Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro
Cc: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Dwarf_Op
On
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 07:29:33PM +, Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro wrote:
> So why not a DW_OP_constu or DW_OP_consts and then a DW_OP_plus?
Probably because that is multiple operators and less efficiently
encoded. But yes, it would be slightly more "correct" semantically.
In this case however it
alive. */
Why simple expression can only have 3 operations? (since Dwarf_Op ops_mem[3])
And what's an arbitrary Dwarf expression? What's a non-arbitrary?
Regards,
Sasha
From: Mark Wielaard
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 6:02 PM
To: Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro
Cc: elfutils-devel@sourceware.
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 05:08:15PM +, Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro wrote:
> yes, I did use dwarf_frame_register(), I believe I mentioned that :).
Sorry, I missed that.
> In the case I brought up you're saying it was an elfutils' libdw
> decision to provide negative number as DW_OP_plus_uconst (uns
ay, April 27, 2019 12:57 PM
To: Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro
Cc: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Dwarf_Op
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:48:49PM +, Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro wrote:
> The output from dwarfdump:
>
> < 5><0x00400918:0x00400974> 0>
>
>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:48:49PM +, Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro wrote:
> The output from dwarfdump:
>
> <5><0x00400918:0x00400974> 0>
>
> 0x00400918:
> 0x0040091c:>
> 0x00400920:>
> 0x00400970:
>
> I'm getting the rules for r30 at PC 0x
e_register.
Even though, the member number is of unsigned int type with signed encoded
values. Am I correct?
Sasha
From: Mark Wielaard
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 3:20 AM
To: Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro; elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Dwarf_Op
Hi Sasha,
On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 23:5
Hi Sasha,
On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 23:59 +, Sasha Da Rocha Pinheiro wrote:
> I have a Dwarf_Op object whose member "number" has size of 8 bytes.
> Its value although is 0xFFE8.
> Shouldn't it be 0xFFE8 instead?
> Since it means an offset, for the current operation, shoul
