On Mar 12, 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Note, for DWARF before v4, there is no DW_FORM_sec_offset and
> DW_FORM_data4 or DW_FORM_data8 depending on whether it is 32-bit or 64-bit
> DWARF is used instead.
Ah, yes, thanks. I made these fixes, changed some dashes to underlines
in "identifiers", an
On 3/12/19 7:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 11:35:50PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
2019-03-04 Jakub Jelinek
PR debug/89498
* dwarf2out.c (size_of_die): For dw_val_class_view_list always use
DWARF_OFFSET_SIZE.
(value_format): For dw_val_cla
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 11:35:50PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2019-03-04 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR debug/89498
> * dwarf2out.c (size_of_die): For dw_val_class_view_list always use
> DWARF_OFFSET_SIZE.
> (value_format): For dw_val_class_view_list never use DW_FORM_loclistx.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 04:32:35AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> When location lists are referenced in DW_AT_location attributes by an
> absolute address in DW_FORM_sec_offset, the corresponding
> DW_AT_GNU_locviews attribute can be a DW_FORM_sec_offset with an
> absolute address as well.
Note,
On Mar 9, 2019, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> If so, then all we need is likely my patch + some documentation change,
>> though not sure where exactly it should be documented, some Wiki we refer
>> in include/dwarf2.def, or what?
> Hmm, I was thinking of pla
On Mar 9, 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> If so, then all we need is likely my patch + some documentation change,
> though not sure where exactly it should be documented, some Wiki we refer
> in include/dwarf2.def, or what?
Hmm, I was thinking of placing it next to dwarf6-sfn-lvu.txt in
https://pe
On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 06:20:47AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > case etc. We need to look at what we emit with
> > -gdwarf-{2,3,4,5} {,-gsplit-dwarf}.
>
> For v<5, we use DW_FORM_sec_offset for both DW_AT_location and
> DW_AT_GNU_locviews, with absolute addresses for -gno-split-dwarf, and
>
On Mar 9, 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Whatever we choose, IMHO: 1) we can't introduce new DW_FORM_*
> 2) we must avoid changing anything on how it was represented for the
> non-split case, we've already shipped GCC 8.[123] with it
None of the thoughts I wrote out involved any of that, so it lo
On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 03:12:28AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Ugh. That's more fallout from the concurrent implementations of v5 and
> LVU, ISTM. My bad for not catching, no doubt, since LVU landed later; I
> don't mean to excuse it, just to explain how it came about.
>
>
> I'm afraid I ha
On Mar 6, 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 04:06:59PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> > Assuming output_view_list_offset is correct, the following patch adjusts
>> > size_of_die/value_format accordingly.
>>
>> I would guess that omitting the handling from output_view_list_off
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 04:06:59PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Assuming output_view_list_offset is correct, the following patch adjusts
> > size_of_die/value_format accordingly.
>
> I would guess that omitting the handling from output_view_list_offset was an
> oversight in the view work. Alex
On 3/4/19 5:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
output_view_list_offset does:
if (dwarf_split_debug_info)
dw2_asm_output_delta (DWARF_OFFSET_SIZE, sym, loc_section_label,
"%s", dwarf_attr_name (a->dw_attr));
else
dw2_asm_output_offset (DWARF_OFFSET_SIZE, sy
Hi!
output_view_list_offset does:
if (dwarf_split_debug_info)
dw2_asm_output_delta (DWARF_OFFSET_SIZE, sym, loc_section_label,
"%s", dwarf_attr_name (a->dw_attr));
else
dw2_asm_output_offset (DWARF_OFFSET_SIZE, sym, debug_loc_section,
13 matches
Mail list logo
