Re: [PATCH, v3] Add code for processing version 5 DWP files (for use with DWARF v5)

[Caroline Tice <cmtice@google.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2344 bytes --]

The changes to include/dwarf2.h were accepted by binutils and have
gone in, so I've removed those changes from this patch.

Is this ok to commit?

-- Caroline
cmtice@google.com

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:22 PM Caroline Tice <cmtice@google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 6:04 AM Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-07-21 12:06 a.m., Caroline Tice wrote:
>> > The DWARF v5 Spec describes a (slightly) new format for V5 .dwp files.
>> > This patch updates GDB to allow it to read/process .dwp files in the
>> > new DWARF v5 format, while continuing to be able to read/process .dwp
>> > files in the older V1 & V2 formats.
>>
>> Can you please describe in the commit message what those differences are?
>>
>
> Done.
>
>>
>> > The one thing I felt a little odd about in this patch:  I couldn't
>> > re-use the enum dwarf_sect
>> > definitions, because  in version 5 several of the sections have the
>> > same name as in the previous versions, but have a different ordering,
>> > with different numbers attached.  So I had to create a new enum,
>> > dwarf_sect_v5 for this purpose.
>>
>> That part would need to be cross-posted to the binutils mailing list.  binutils
>> does use the DW_SECT_* enumerators, presumably to read dwp files too, so they
>> would likely use those new DWARF 5 enumerators eventually.
>>
>
> I will create/submit a patch to the binutils mailing list.
>
>>
>> > Is this patch ok to commit?
>>
>> It would be useful to precise somewhere, perhaps in the comment on `struct dwp_sections`.
>> that versions 1 and 2 are pre-standard versions, and that version 5 was introduced in
>> DWARF5.  And that versions 3 and 4 don't exist.
>
>
> Done.
>
>>
>>
>> I don't have time to do an in-depth review right now, but one question that came to mind
>> is: is an advantage of having virtual_v2_or_v5_dwo_sections over having separate
>> virtual_v2_dwo_sections and virtual_v5_dwo_sections?
>
>
> Not particularly; I was just trying to avoid code duplication.
>
>>
>> Now when using v2 or v5, there are
>> fields you don't use (because they are either v2-specific or v5-specific), so I imagine
>> it's just more error prone.  Does it avoid a lot of code duplication?
>
>
> A small amount, but not a lot.
>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>
>
> Below is my updated patch (mostly just updated comments & commit message)

[-- Attachment #2: v3-0001-Add-code-for-processing-version-5-DWP-files-for-u.patch --]
[-- Type: application/x-patch, Size: 30926 bytes --]