search for: dwarfv3

...act DW_FORM. Sometimes, we might even end up in an ambiguous situation and not get the result we want. For example, in DWARFv4, the DW_AT_high_pc attribute has either a Constant or an Address class, which use completely different forms, but if we have just "Value: 0x1234", which is it? In DWARFv3, it is always an Address, if I remember correctly, so in that case, we might want our default to be "Address". However, for DWARFv4 the compiler typically emits DW_AT_high_pc using a Constant form, and most people might expect that to be used instead. I think having a different name for...

...,26 @@ const DWARFDebugAranges *DWARFContext::g >> return Aranges.get(); >> } >> >> +const DWARFDebugFrame *DWARFContext::getDebugFrame() { >> + if (DebugFrame) >> + return DebugFrame.get(); >> + >> + // There's a "bug" in the DWARFv3 standard with respect to the target address >> + // size within debug frame sections. While DWARF is supposed to be independent >> + // of its container, FDEs have fields with size being "target address size", >> + // which isn't specified in DWARF in general. It&...

Hi Pavel, Thanks for your comments! On 5/21/20, Pavel Labath <pavel at labath.sk> wrote: > Hello Xing, > > I think the proposal looks very useful. I think it will be fairly tricky > to get all of the details right though. There is a lot of "inferring" > going on there, and getting that to work reliably and with predictable > results will need careful

...don't have to worry about it. However, conformance is still a concern to me as we cannot really retrofit the existing standard versions, and the section names themselves are in the standard. That means that tools that otherwise would work might stop working when presented with a "new" DWARFv3/4/5 output that it in theory could otherwise handle. This applies to both debuggers who don't know about the support and tools like llvm-dwarfdump which work on intermediate objects until they get updated. One final concern with the section name approach is that there are tools that look for th...

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 link mixing DWARF32 and DWARF64 sections,