Hi, a future FEAT, possibly to file it in some BZ?
http://dwarf.freestandards.org/Dwarf3.pdf 4.1.-4. (page 71/267) says about DW_AT_location: # In a variable entry representing the definition of a variable (that is, with # no DW_AT_declaration attribute) if no location attribute is present, or if # the location attribute is present but has a null description (as described # in Section 2.6), the variable is assumed to exist in the source code but not # in the executable program (but see number 10, below). dwarflint could warn on existing zero-length DW_FORM_block* DW_AT_location for DW_AT_variable with neither DW_AT_declaration nor DW_TAG_const_value. This should mean the same as missing DW_AT_location - which has smaller DWARF code. (GDB has a bug - it behaves differently to it as it _ignores_ variable with DW_AT_location missing. It should consider it as _optimized-out_ as in the case of the empty DW_FORM_block* of DW_AT_location). Assuming for attributes like DW_AT_upper_bound the difference makes sense - unbound array (missing DW_AT_upper_bound) vs. optimized-out bound of the array (DW_AT_upper_bound with empty DW_FORM_block*). Regards, Jan _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
