This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v3.2 2/5] DWARF-5: .debug_names index producer
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, vleschuk at accesssoftek dot com
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:38:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.2 2/5] DWARF-5: .debug_names index producer
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <149790572259.20186.14601775821404892582.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <149790574432.20186.16599093068806909362.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <83d19ywuuw.fsf@gnu.org> <20170622183542.GA8552@host1.jankratochvil.net> <83h8z7vnl6.fsf@gnu.org> <20170622200344.GA14233@host1.jankratochvil.net> <c51a42b6-b4d6-0d7f-64bb-8c529b321401@redhat.com>
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 00:51:38 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> When I started looking at this in detail this week, I was
> a bit surprised to learn that the names table is essentially the
> same as .gdb_index's, meaning full-qualified names with no
> overload/parameter info, and especially -- no indication
> of which language the name is for, which was a nuisance
> for making C++ wildmatching support work with .gdb_index.
> Somehow I had the impression that it was different from
> earlier chats. OTOH, the upside is that that we'll manage
> to reuse the mapped_index::name_components code for .debug_names.
The features of splitting the components of fully qualified names was planned
as an add-on patch on top of this one. Although GDB did not have real support
for that when I was writing this patchset and I expected it would be then
written more as a part of that components support even for the .debug_names
index. The goal of the initial .debug_names implementation was to match
.gdb_index.
> > + if (to_underlying (per_cu.sect_off) >= (static_cast<uint64_t> (1) << 32))
> > + return true;
>
> These look like always return false, since per_cu.sect_off is 32-bit?
> I've left it as is, but it doesn't look right to me. Seems like
> that makes all the 64-bit support dead as is.
I did not know GDB does not support 64-bit DWARF now:
/* * Offset relative to the start of its .debug_info or .debug_types
section. */
DEFINE_OFFSET_TYPE (sect_offset, unsigned int);
Jan