On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:40 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:22:35PM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> > So, when the consumer evaluates DW_OP_GNU_parameter_ref, it handles it
> > > similarly to DW_OP_entry_value, unwinds to caller if it can identify
> it,
> > > and just looks up
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:22:35PM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> So, when the consumer evaluates DW_OP_GNU_parameter_ref, it handles it
> > similarly to DW_OP_entry_value, unwinds to caller if it can identify it,
> > and just looks up if some value is specified for it in that particular
> >
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 11:52 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 11:43:54AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> > Thanks for the details! So in this case GCC changes the ABI of foo(int x,
> > int y) to be equivalent to foo(int y) and the parameter description of
> 'y'
>
> No, it is
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 11:43:54AM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
> Thanks for the details! So in this case GCC changes the ABI of foo(int x,
> int y) to be equivalent to foo(int y) and the parameter description of 'y'
No, it is actually equivalent to foo(void) but DW_TAG_call_site_parameter
in
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 11:16:01AM -0800, David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss
> wrote:
> > void f1(int i) { }
> >
> > to include a DW_AT_location with fbreg, nothing about how the ABI
> > represents 'i' - so that would be an ABI gap.
> >
> > In
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 11:16:01AM -0800, David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
> void f1(int i) { }
>
> to include a DW_AT_location with fbreg, nothing about how the ABI
> represents 'i' - so that would be an ABI gap.
>
> In the cases where the compiler does modify any ABI-relevant properties,
Frank:
FWIW, gcc does not leave ABI-dependent gaps in the DWARF generated for
function parameters. First class location lists are given, whether or
not they are in the ABI-governed locations, or whether they've been
moved somewhere else, or whether they've been optimized out so that a
consumer
It's difficult to offer advice with such a spare description.
You might read the executable and relocate the .debug_info and
other debug sections using the process map. If you have the
process image, this probably would not be necessary.
On 3/8/21 1:49 AM, Archana Deshmukh via Dwarf-Discuss
On 3/9/21 7:13 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
As I understand it, the location of*function return values* is
however a gap in DWARF, and a consumer tool must resort to ABI specs.
(Thus the elfutils dwfl_module_return_value_location() function.) I'm
sure there's a Reason for
On Tue, Mar 09 2021, Frank Ch. Eigler via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
[...]
> FWIW, gcc does not leave ABI-dependent gaps in the DWARF generated for
> function parameters. First class location lists are given, whether or
> not they are in the ABI-governed locations, or whether they've been
> moved
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 10:13, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> Hi, Andrew -
>
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:05:04AM -0500, Andrew Cagney via Dwarf-Discuss
> wrote:
> > [...]
> > This means that:
> > - for simple objects, local functions; and
> > - with link-time-optimization, everything except library
Hi Andrew
On Tue Mar 9, 2021 at 3:05 PM GMT, Andrew Cagney via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
> Part of a typical Application Binary Interface is to specify the
> function calling convention. Several uses are:
>
> - ensuring function calls across interface boundaries work (function
> in one object calls
(re-sending because outlook omitted the group address)
> -Original Message-
> From: Dwarf-Discuss On Behalf
> Of Jakub Jelinek via Dwarf-Discuss
> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:16 AM
> To: Andrew Cagney
> Cc: DWARF Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] compilers generating ABI
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:05:04AM -0500, Andrew Cagney via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
> Is anyone aware of a compiler doing this (I figure with LTO there's a
> strong incentive)? And if so, how is this described to the debugger.
> The ABI / calling-convention is no longer on hand for filling in the
>
Hi, Andrew -
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:05:04AM -0500, Andrew Cagney via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
> [...]
> This means that:
> - for simple objects, local functions; and
> - with link-time-optimization, everything except library interface functions
> are fair game for ABI non-compliant call
Part of a typical Application Binary Interface is to specify the
function calling convention. Several uses are:
- ensuring function calls across interface boundaries work (function
in one object calls function in second object)
- the debugger supplementing the debug information describing the
16 matches
Mail list logo
