On 2023-04-06 12:03 p.m., Jakub Jelinek via Dwarf-discuss wrote: >> define fixed-length vectors as special built-in types or is the goal to >> support >> arbitrary vector lengths? >> >> It might be good to maintain an upper limit on the size of a stack entry. > I think it is better if consumers simply have some upper limit on their own, > either hard limit, where for anything above that limit evaluation of the > DWARF expression yields an optimized out state, or soft limit, where > elements smaller than limit are encoded in DWARF stack directly (say as > union of the various types known to fit under the limit) and for > larger elements just encode them as reference to malloced data or something > similar.
I agree with this. A consumer could even use other implementation strategies, like it could have a single large byte buffer where all stack elements are incrementally allocated on as the stack grows, and rolled back when the stack element is popped, like local variables in a C runtime stack. In such an implementation, stack entries would have variable size, and you wouldn't need to care about per-stack-entry size at all, you'd just make sure that the whole-stack-size limit isn't breached. -- Dwarf-discuss mailing list Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
