This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch] Add new DW_AT and DW_FORM codes for Fission
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at google dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:14:18 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch] Add new DW_AT and DW_FORM codes for Fission
- References: <CAHACq4oXJkN7-u==CTQOzgRnSaNfoPto9jLWR9gkG8phjtjgxw@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 05:54:26PM -0800, Cary Coutant wrote:
> I'd like to add these new DW_AT and DW_FORM codes for the Fission project:
> We're currently working on the Fission implementation in GCC, gold,
> and binutils, but I'd like to at least lay claim to the actual values
> to prevent overlap with any other extensions that someone might start
> working on.
> In GCC, we're working on the (git-only) google/debugfission branch.
> We'll be sending gold and binutils patches soon.
> Any objections? Is this OK for trunk in binutils and gcc trees?
If the DW_FORM_ values are meant to be in a vendor range of forms
(which DWARF4 unfortunately doesn't have), aren't they too low, i.e. isn't
there risk that eventually they'll clash with standard forms?
The forms numbers aren't limited to 0 .. 0x7f, at the expense of a slightly
bigger abbrev table you could as well use something very high, like 0x380+.
And, if you want to standardize it, I'd assume the codes would be lower
on the other side (there are still even free codes from 0x1a through to