Hi Omar, On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 01:22 -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > The final piece of DWARF package file support is that offsets have to be > interpreted relative to the section offset from the package index. > .debug_abbrev.dwo is already covered, so sprinkle around calls to > dwarf_cu_dwp_section_info for the remaining sections: .debug_line.dwo, > .debug_loclists.dwo/.debug_loc.dwo, .debug_str_offsets.dwo, > .debug_macro.dwo/.debug_macinfo.dwo, and .debug_rnglists.dwo. With all > of that in place, we can finally test various libdw functions on dwp > files.
So the offsets for DW_SECT_INFO, DW_SECT_TYPES and DW_SECT_ABBREV were already taken into account when setting up a cu from a dwp. With this patch __libdw_cu_str_off_base/str_offsets_base_off handles DW_SECT_STR_OFFSETS which is used in dwarf_formstring and dwarf_getmacros. __libdw_cu_ranges_base handles DW_SECT_RNGLISTS, which is used by dwarf_ranges. And __libdw_formptr has a special case for DW_FORM_sec_offset for IDX_debug_ranges && version < 5 && unit_type == DW_UT_split_compile to also uses __libdw_cu_ranges_base. __libdw_cu_locs_base handles DW_SECT_LOCLISTS which is used in dwarf_getlocation through initial_offset. I do wonder why the special case in __libdw_formptr isn't needed here too. dwarf_getmacros handles DW_SECT_MACRO through get_offset_from. And when the macros need to refer to the line table, it also handles DW_SECT_LINE. Don't we also need to handle DW_SECT_LINE in dwarf_getsrclines and dwarf_next_lines when looking for DW_AT_stmt_list? > * libdw/dwarf_getmacros.c (get_macinfo_table): Call > dwarf_cu_dwp_section_info and add offset to line_offset. > (get_offset_from): Call dwarf_cu_dwp_section_info and add offset > to *retp. > * libdw/libdwP.h (str_offsets_base_off): Call > dwarf_cu_dwp_section_info and add offset. > (__libdw_cu_ranges_base): Ditto. > (__libdw_cu_locs_base): Ditto. > * libdw/dwarf_getlocation.c (initial_offset): Call > dwarf_cu_dwp_section_info and add offset to start_offset. > * tests/run-varlocs.sh: Check testfile-dwp-5 and testfile-dwp-4. > * tests/run-all-dwarf-ranges.sh: Check testfile-dwp-5 and > testfile-dwp-4. > * tests/run-dwarf-getmacros.sh: Check testfile-dwp-5 and > testfile-dwp-4-strict. > * tests/run-get-units-split.sh: Check testfile-dwp-5, > testfile-dwp-4, and testfile-dwp-4-strict. The code and tests look good. run-varlocs.sh seems good, which seems to confirm DW_SECT_LOCLISTS is handled correctly (but why doesn't it need a hack similar to ranges in __libdw_formptr?). We might want to add a test for run-next-lines.sh and run-next- files.sh? Thanks, Mark