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

[Caroline Tice <cmtice@google.com>]

Ping?

-- Caroline
cmtice@google.com


On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 2:05 PM Caroline Tice <cmtice@google.com> wrote:

> 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)
>