I believe this is an issue with the implementations, although it is a bit odd 
that both gcc and clang behave the same way. There should be a 
DW_TAG_call_site_parameter for each parameter. DW_AT_location should describe 
the stack slot where the parameter is passed. It should not be a problem for 
the compiler to do that, the location description would be evaluated in the 
context of the caller.
--paulr

From: Dwarf-discuss 
<dwarf-discuss-bounces+paul.robinson=sony....@lists.dwarfstd.org> On Behalf Of 
Sergey via Dwarf-discuss
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 9:57 AM
To: dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
Subject: [Dwarf-discuss] Request for clarification of handling stack-passed 
parameters

# Request for clarification of handling stack-passed parameters

## Background

I came across this while parsing parameters of a variadic function in C. Formal 
parameters are not sufficient for my case, since all the variadic arguments are 
described with a single `DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters`, whereas reading 
`DW_TAG_call_site_parameter` allows to get their locations and values.

## Overview

When generating a DWARF5 of a C function with **more than 6** parameters, the 
generated `DW_TAG_call_site` contains only **first 6** 
`DW_TAG_call_site_parameter`s (function's `DW_TAG_formal_parameter`s contain 
all of them).

Something I have noticed is that the parameters, which do not get 
`DW_TAG_call_site_parameter` generated, are all **passed through 
stack**(whereas first 6 through registers), as evident by function's 
`DW_TAG_formal_parameter`'s `DW_AT_location` containing `DW_OP_fbreg`.

## Request for clarification

It happens both with gcc and clang, however I was unable to find any 
information in the standard regarding generation of only registed-passed 
parameters.

I request clarification on whether it is an issue with implementations, or is 
there something in the standard which justifies the described behaviour.
-- 
Dwarf-discuss mailing list
Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss

Reply via email to