Here's the posted issue: https://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=220724.1
On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 10:56 PM David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Posted an issue to the dwarfstd.org to propose removing > .debug_aranges, will follow up with a link here once it's > accepted/posted publicly. > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 2:02 PM Greg Clayton <clayb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > As long as there is a DW_AT_ranges on the CU the is complete, that is good > > enough for LLDB. No one seems to consistently emit .debug_aranges these > > days so we definitely don't rely on it. > > > > Greg > > > > > On Jun 14, 2022, at 1:10 PM, David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss > > > <dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote: > > > > > > Given the discussion previously in this thread - does anyone have > > > particular objections to removing .debug_aranges? (in favor of/perhaps > > > with specific wording that /requires/ CU level ranges to be specified > > > (ie: it's not acceptable to have a subprogram with non-empty range in > > > a CU which doesn't cover that range) - so a consumer can look at the > > > CU and, if it has no ranges, conclude that it has no addresses covered > > > and skip the CU for address-related computation purposes) > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dwarf-Discuss mailing list > > > Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org > > > http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org > > _______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
