On 02/04/2014 02:27 PM, Roland McGrath wrote: > I think you're right on both counts, but I haven't delved into the > potential weirdness from changing sign-extension behavior.
Yeah, it's potentially nasty. There are only a few internal dwarf_formsdata calls: for the decls as I mentioned, and in array_size() for DW_AT_lower/upper_bound. AFAICS the spec doesn't explicitly call bounds signed or unsigned, but only unsigned makes sense to me, so these also ought to use dwarf_formudata. I don't know what to say about external callers... :/ On 02/04/2014 02:00 PM, Josh Stone wrote: > So libdw's dwarf_formsdata reads 0xb5 as 179. Also, this isn't broken math, I just crossed my eyes somewhere. Really libdw reads data1 0xb5 as 181.
