From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23570 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2002 19:20:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23560 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 19:20:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2002 19:20:49 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id 663925EA11; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:20:48 -0500 (EST) To: Petr Sorfa Cc: "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] DWARF support for .debug_loc offsets References: <3D2DB435.AC2C6DA0@caldera.com> <3D2DD90F.95EEC777@caldera.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3D2DD90F.95EEC777@caldera.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00241.txt.bz2 Petr Sorfa writes: > Sorry for the [PATCH] debacle will use [RFA]. Comments below. (Well, it's hardly a debacle; more like a minor bureaucratic point. But it's a useful convention, so I try to spread the news when the need arises.) > > Petr Sorfa writes: > > > This patch provides support for offsets into .debug_loc. > > > > > > The patch does not include .debug_loc support in read_tag_string_type() > > > as the DW_AT_string_length attribute is currently being misused by GCC > > > (it uses it to hold the length, rather than the location to the length) > > > and GDB supports the incorrect form. > > > > > > There is a second part of this patch which is dependent on FORTRAN95 > > > support of modules and will be released later. > > > > I'm confused. If (say) a DW_AT_frame_base attribute's value uses > > DW_FORM_data4 or DW_FORM_data8, then that data is the offset in the > > ..debug_loc section of a location list describing how to find the > > object at various points in the code. But your code seems to assume > > that the data in the .debug_loc section is simply the address of the > > object. > > > > Having location list support would be great, but if we can get > > Daniel's LOC_COMPUTED patch committed, adding location list support > > will be very simple. > Oops, you are completely correct. Let me remove the DW_FORM_data4/8 > stuff for DW_AT_frame_base and resubmit the patch for RFA. Is this OK? The only thing that'll be left is the code that checks the form, and complains if it's not DW_FORM_block, right? Yes, that'll be fine.