Re: dwarflint .debug_aranges

[Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>]

> I see, so high level will check if there are addresses in CUs that need 
> covering, and will only issue missing-section warning then.  I dropped 
> the message for now.

Right.  It will just check each CU's range-list (can be empty) and complain
if the .debug_arange set matching the CU is !=.

> > You do a connectivity check for the CU pointers.  It would also be useful
> > to do a "suspicious" check that there aren't multiple separate sets
> > pointing to the same CU.  It is not clearly invalid per se to have
> > multiples, but it is clearly weird.  Our high-level checks probably won't
> > try to account for multiple sets for a CU being correct.
> 
> Done.  Should I do similar check for pubnames/pubtypes?

Yes, I think so.

> That's how it's done.  I think you may have been looking at 
> pubnames/pubtypes validation instead.

Hmm, must have been.  Sorry.


Thanks,
Roland