>>>>> "Roland" == Roland McGrath <[email protected]> writes:
Roland> The only rationale I've heard for empty ranges is Tom's idea Roland> that every CU should be the rhs of some .debug_aranges entry Roland> just so you can be sure that .debug_aranges is really complete Roland> (vs. a buggy old GCC, or some different letter-of-DWARF producer Roland> where some CUs with actual PCs had no .debug_aranges data Roland> emitted, is what I assume Tom must have in mind). I see it as following the wording of the standard. .debug_aranges is optional. Therefore it may or may not exist for a given CU. I think this, like several other things in DWARF, is pointless and bad -- but it is what we've got. I don't know if there is any plausible scenario where this could really happen. Maybe hand-written assembly? It would be very interesting to see a .debug_aranges report from dwarflint run on everything in F13 or F14. Roland> In short, Petr has helped me become even more dubious about Tom's idea Roland> that .debug_aranges getting anything at all for CUs without PCs is any Roland> kind of useful. I ran across this while trying to code defensively against the standard. Perhaps this is me being too pedantic. OTOH, the lax route has not worked out very well for gdb historically -- DWARF changes causing crashes, etc. Right now, GDB isn't using aranges at all. I guess it could; we could drop the range info from the index. If we do that, I will make it follow whatever you decide here. I don't actually care all that much. Actually, I tend to think we should fork DWARF a little to fix its most egregious problems. Tom _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
