JDevlieghere wrote:
> > but some architectures express it relative to the frame base without
> > DW_OP_fbreg
>
> Is this valid DWARF though? Should we just fix the producer instead?
When I put up the PR I thought the answer was yes, but your question prompted
me to dig a little deeper.
> Is this valid DWARF though?
Apparently not. Per the standard, a variable's DW_AT_location is a
self-contained expression evaluated with an empty stack. I couldn't find
anything that states otherwise for Wasm specifically.
> Should we just fix the producer instead?
Yes. LLVM emits two different encodings depending on whether the frame base
ends up in a Wasm:
```
DW_AT_frame_base (DW_OP_WASM_location 0x0 0x0, DW_OP_stack_value)
DW_AT_location (DW_OP_fbreg +11)
```
```
DW_AT_frame_base (DW_OP_WASM_location 0x3 0x0, DW_OP_stack_value)
DW_AT_location (DW_OP_plus_uconst 0xf)
```
I think it's just an oversight. I will put up a PR.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/211700
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
