Thanks for reporting this stuff! I see a few things you found have already been reported, but please make sure to file issues for the rest so we can clean up as much as we can.
> New FORMs. DW_FORM_ref_sup doesn't describe how the offset is > represented. Currently the assumption in elfutils is that it is 4 or 8 > bytes depending on whether the containing unit is 32bit or 64bit DWARF. > This would be consistent with DW_FORM_strp_sup. The consequence is that > if the supplemental file has really big data sections you need a 64bit > DWARF unit to reference everything in it. Already filed as issue 161114.1. http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=161114.1 > There is no description of the > representation of DW_FORM_line_strp, but DW_FORM_strp is mentioned > twice. I assumed the second should just be DW_FORM_line_strp. Already reported to the editor as a typo, not filed as an issue. > Macro Information Header. The macro information entries in the > opcode_operands_table may be described in the table. But some cannot be > described because some forms are not in the list of allowed forms. In > particular DW_FORM_strp_sup is missing so DW_MACRO_define_sup and > DW_MACRO_undef_sup cannot be described. And DW_FORM_ref_sup is missing, > making it impossible to describe DW_MACRO_import_sup. Which makes the > code that checks for allowed forms slightly inconvenient (it should > reject these MACRO descriptions if those forms are used in the table, > but not if they are defined implicitly). Also DW_FORM_line_strp isn't > allowed. But it might be beneficial for describing files referenced by > macros. Good catch. I see there is issue 161031.3 which has to do with allowed forms in the line table, but I'm not seeing one for the macro section. Thanks, --paulr _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list -- elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to elfutils-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org