search for: at_call_return_pc

...rying to wrap my head around the implementation, purpose, and costs involved in both the GCC-extension v4 and standard v5 DW_TAG_call_site, call site parameters, addresses, etc. So picking up from some of the design discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D72489: Me (Blaikie): I'm not sure why AT_call_return_pc would be needed at a tail call site as the debugger must ignore it. As for emitting DW_AT_low_pc under gdb tuning, I think this might be an artifact from the original GNU implementation. Djordje: Yes, that is the GNU implementation's heritage (I cannot remember why GCC generated the low_pc in...

...ns, etc... If the label difference in a low_pc attribute is relative to the start of a section, could a linker orderfile pass break the dwarf unless it updates the offset? Ditto, I suppose, for an intra-function offset when something like propeller is used to reorder basic blocks (I’m thinking of At_call_return_pc now). Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, I suppose there must be a solution for this for At_high_pc to work. vedant > >> >> thanks, >> vedant >> >>> On Jan 8, 2020, at 1:33 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrot...

I don't totally follow the proposed encoding change & would appreciate a small example. Is the idea to replace e.g. an 'AT_low_pc (<direct address>) + relocation for <direct address>' with an 'AT_low_pc (<indirection into a pool of addresses> + offset)', s.t. the cost of a relocation for the address is paid down the more it's used? How do you figure