From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14706 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 14:55:26 -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 14684 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2003 14:55:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kerberos.suse.cz) (195.47.106.10) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 14:55:25 -0000 Received: from chimera.suse.cz (chimera.suse.cz [10.20.0.2]) by kerberos.suse.cz (SuSE SMTP server) with ESMTP id 9CDD759D367; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:34:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from suse.cz (naga.suse.cz [10.20.1.16]) by chimera.suse.cz (8.11.0/8.11.0/SuSE Linux 8.11.0-0.4) with ESMTP id h1HEYU412756; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:34:30 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: chimera.suse.cz: Host naga.suse.cz [10.20.1.16] claimed to be suse.cz Message-ID: <3E50F2F5.4000108@suse.cz> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:55:00 -0000 From: Michal Ludvig Organization: SuSE CR User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: cs, cz, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Daniel Berlin , gdb , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Reference to .debug_loc References: <20030214152619.GD30416@nevyn.them.org> <20030214195124.GA11479@nevyn.them.org> <20030214213521.J1717@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20030214204041.GA15348@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20030214204041.GA15348@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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? Why? Michal Ludvig -- * SuSE CR, s.r.o * mludvig@suse.cz * (+420) 296.545.373 * http://www.suse.cz