From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14654 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2003 20:40:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14642 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2003 20:40:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2003 20:40:49 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18joWf-0000ty-00; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:41:45 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18jmdW-00071T-00; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:40:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:40:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Daniel Berlin , Michal Ludvig , gdb , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Reference to .debug_loc Message-ID: <20030214204041.GA15348@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jakub Jelinek , Daniel Berlin , Michal Ludvig , gdb , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <20030214152619.GD30416@nevyn.them.org> <20030214195124.GA11479@nevyn.them.org> <20030214213521.J1717@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030214213521.J1717@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 09:35:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:51:24PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > >>Or is there another way? > > > > > > > >At a guess it should be like DW_AT_ranges: > > > > .long .Ldebug_ranges0+0x0 # DW_AT_ranges > > > > > > > >I.E. dw2_asm_output_offset, rather than dw2_asm_output_delta, in GCC. > > > > > > > > > > It's supposed to be the offset from the beginning of the debug_loc > > > section. > > > Will this do that? > > > > I think so. The result will be something like .Ldebug_ranges0 + > > (.LLST0-.Ldebug_loc0). If the assembler won't take that then we'll > > have to track addresses for loclists the same as we do for rangelists. > > Why simple .long .LLST0 is not sufficient (@secrel(.LLST0) on IA-64)? > It is not the only place where gcc relies on VMA of debugging sections > to be 0 if the architecture lacks section relative relocations. I suppose that would work. Do you know why DW_AT_ranges is done the way it is? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer