This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch] Support unordered .debug_info references to .debug_ranges


Jan Kratochvil wrote:

> This mail thread is about:
> .debug_info:
> DIE  0x0: DW_AT_ranges 0x10 (exchanged order)
> DIE 0x28: DW_AT_ranges  0x0 (exchanged order)
> .debug_ranges:
> @ 0x0: 0x60..0x70  0x80.. 0x90 0,0 (the same as in the normal case)
> @0x10: 0x70..0x80 0x100..0x110 0,0 (the same as in the normal case)
> 
> While the GCC Bug was about:
> .debug_info:
> DIE  0x0: DW_AT_ranges  0x0 (the same as in the normal case)
> DIE 0x28: DW_AT_ranges 0x10 (the same as in the normal case)
> .debug_ranges:
> @ 0x0: 0x60..0x70  0x80.. 0x90 0,0 (the same as in the normal case)
> @0x10: 0x70..0x80 0x100..0x110 0x70..0x110 0,0 (overlap inside
>                                                 the same range list)

  Oh, I see, it's the overall ordering of the tables, not the ordering within
one table.

> GCC could be changed (to also insert into ranges_by_label/ranges_table instead
> of just appending as being done now).  But such GCC change would have no
> meaning other than workarounding this bug in readelf.  DWARF has no such
> ordering requirements.  So I think it is better to fix readelf.

  I think you're right.

    cheers,
      DaveK


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]