search for: 47qdq

In https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ (you need to join the group before making a post) Cary Coutant raised yet another idea: whether we can use ".debug64" as the section prefix. I like the idea because of: * It is immediately obvious whether DWARF64 is used and whether DWARF32 is used along with DWARF64. * In a relocatable...

...es. Conceptually, the combined section should impose the rigid restriction when it is further combined with other sections. This is probably an extra argument that we don't need SHT_DWARF32. > > FWIW I started a generic-abi thread > > https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ ("Reserve a > > section type value for DWARF64") to give stakeholders from other ELF > > operating systems a chance to participate in the design. I have paid > > attention to my wording: a new section type is **not decided yet** on > > LLVM/GNU binutils sides. Our...

...to identify such sections, rather than .debug, so .debug64 would be a bad name to use (although you could do .debug_64_info or .debug_info_64 probably safely). On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 06:07, Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > In https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ (you need to > join the group before making a post) > Cary Coutant raised yet another idea: whether we can use ".debug64" as > the section prefix. I like the idea because of: > > * It is immediately obvious whether DWARF64 is used and whether > DWARF32 is used along with...

...mbined section should impose the rigid restriction > when it is further combined with other sections. > This is probably an extra argument that we don't need SHT_DWARF32. > > > > FWIW I started a generic-abi thread > > > https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ ("Reserve a > > > section type value for DWARF64") to give stakeholders from other ELF > > > operating systems a chance to participate in the design. I have paid > > > attention to my wording: a new section type is **not decided yet** on > > > LLVM/GNU...

...RF64 or SHT_GNU_DWARF64 In LLD, we will need to allow mixed SHT_PROGBITS and SHT_DWARF64. If all input sections are SHT_DWARF64, the output section type probably should also be SHT_DWARF64. If mixed, SHT_PROGBITS. FWIW I started a generic-abi thread https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ ("Reserve a section type value for DWARF64") to give stakeholders from other ELF operating systems a chance to participate in the design. I have paid attention to my wording: a new section type is **not decided yet** on LLVM/GNU binutils sides. Our discussions on llvm-dev/binutils will be...

...be contained in a SHT_PROGBITS section. Consequently, the section which contains DWARF64 data without DWARF32 data should also be SHT_PROGBITS, because the latter is just a special case of the former. > FWIW I started a generic-abi thread > https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ ("Reserve a > section type value for DWARF64") to give stakeholders from other ELF > operating systems a chance to participate in the design. I have paid > attention to my wording: a new section type is **not decided yet** on > LLVM/GNU binutils sides. Our discussions on llvm-...

...in my previous reply, "SHT_PROGBITS+SHT_DWARF64 => SHT_DWARF64" makes the scheme automatically work with relocatable links. There are 0x60000000 generic section type values and 0x10000000 OS specific values. The resource is abundant. On https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ , Cary Coutant has made an alternative proposal by adding a new section flag. Personally I prefer a section type a section flag with reasons explained by Ali Bahrami. People are still arguing but I appreciate that the theme of the discussion is that people acknowledge the use cases and agree to use...

...in my previous reply, "SHT_PROGBITS+SHT_DWARF64 => SHT_DWARF64" makes the scheme automatically work with relocatable links. There are 0x60000000 generic section type values and 0x10000000 OS specific values. The resource is abundant. On https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ , Cary Coutant has made an alternative proposal by adding a new section flag. Personally I prefer a section type a section flag with reasons explained by Ali Bahrami. People are still arguing but I appreciate that the theme of the discussion is that people acknowledge the use cases and agree to us...

...RF64 or SHT_GNU_DWARF64 In LLD, we will need to allow mixed SHT_PROGBITS and SHT_DWARF64. If all input sections are SHT_DWARF64, the output section type probably should also be SHT_DWARF64. If mixed, SHT_PROGBITS. FWIW I started a generic-abi thread https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ ("Reserve a section type value for DWARF64") to give stakeholders from other ELF operating systems a chance to participate in the design. I have paid attention to my wording: a new section type is **not decided yet** on LLVM/GNU binutils sides. Our discussions on llvm-dev/binutils will b...

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:17 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:05 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > > > > I got replies from Nick Clifton and Michael Matz: > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-November/114116.html > > (and its reply). > > I have mentioned (a) the difficulty