On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:56 PM Cary Coutant wrote:
> > Not to derail this thread, but another thing that might be worth
> checking is: should debug_aranges include non-code addresses. GCC's don't,
> Clang's do. Sounds like Clang's correct, but GCC is sort of the defacto
> standard DWARF
> Not to derail this thread, but another thing that might be worth checking is:
> should debug_aranges include non-code addresses. GCC's don't, Clang's do.
> Sounds like Clang's correct, but GCC is sort of the defacto standard DWARF
> producer, so might be worth getting an authoritative
Not to derail this thread, but another thing that might be worth checking
is: should debug_aranges include non-code addresses. GCC's don't, Clang's
do. Sounds like Clang's correct, but GCC is sort of the defacto standard
DWARF producer, so might be worth getting an authoritative
Paul,
I haven't needed to contend with this issue. But as I was looking over the
standard, this was my initial gut reaction too: use the segment selectors. This
use actually does seem like it's a characteristic of the target architecture to
me. You started the discussion with "Harvard
This recently came up in the LLVM project. Harvard architectures
put code and data into separate address spaces, but those spaces
are not explicit; instructions that load/store memory implicitly
use the data space, while things like taking a function address or
doing indirect branches will
