From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23789 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2006 23:18:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 23777 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2006 23:18:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pop-savannah.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO pop-savannah.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (207.69.195.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:18:38 +0000 Received: from cpe-66-1-132-251.ca.sprintbbd.net ([66.1.132.251] helo=quasar2) by pop-savannah.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1FoqBm-0002Ox-00; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:14:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Accept DWARF 3-format debug info From: David Anderson Reply-To: davea42@earthlink.net To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Jimb@codesourcery.com, julian@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:18:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1149894888.7813.35.camel@quasar2> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-4.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00116.txt.bz2 Damiel writes, about a supposed change in DW_FORM_ref_addr: >References that use the attribute form DW_FORM_ref_addr are specified >to be four bytes in the DWARF 32-bit format and eight bytes in the >DWARF 64-bit format, while DWARF Version 2 specifies that such >references have the same size as an address on the target system >(see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.4). This is a correct observation, but *the dwarf 2 document was wrong*. We did this late in 1992 and simply botched the document. Confusion and tiredness :-( Same size as an address simply makes no sense, never did. Till very recently I don't think anyone used DW_FORM_ref_addr. I did get an inquiry from one person (about dwarfdump) that proved one compiler supplier believes the dwarf2 document on this point. Recent inquiry, I mean. There should still be FAQ on dwarf.freestandards.org which says the DWARF2 doc was/is wrong (I wrote that FAQ). What the dwarf3 doc says is what we always intended. It's an offset, not an address. Misleading name of the form... David Anderson (davea@sgi.com, writing from home)