On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 5:37 PM David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 3:44 PM Cary Coutant wrote:
>
>> >> > Yep - unless someone has significant objections my plan is currently:
>> >> >
>> >> > Emit a v5 index with extension/non-standard extra column indexes
>> (specifically: DW_SECT_
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 3:44 PM Cary Coutant wrote:
> >> > Yep - unless someone has significant objections my plan is currently:
> >> >
> >> > Emit a v5 index with extension/non-standard extra column indexes
> (specifically: DW_SECT_LOC and 9 and DW_SECT_MACINFO at 10). I hope those
> can at leas
> The pre-v5 dwp format was just a prototype, accessed via
> --experimental GCC flags, and I don't think we ever intended to
> support mixing pre-v5 dwo files with standard v5 dwo files.
Sorry, I was wrong about the --experimental flags. The prototype did
get upstreamed under the -gsplit-dwarf fla
>> > Yep - unless someone has significant objections my plan is currently:
>> >
>> > Emit a v5 index with extension/non-standard extra column indexes
>> > (specifically: DW_SECT_LOC and 9 and DW_SECT_MACINFO at 10). I hope those
>> > can at least be reserved (like DW_SECT value 2 (originally DW_S
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:31 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 23:13, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:05 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
> >> Yes, the lack of an official extension space is unfortunate, but I
> >> don't think this needs to be a blocker -- the
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 23:13, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:05 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
>> Yes, the lack of an official extension space is unfortunate, but I
>> don't think this needs to be a blocker -- the spec also doesn't
>> include an DW_FORM extension space, but that ha
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:05 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 21:36, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:41 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah, this sounds tricky, but it is actually good timing, because I
> >> was just about to start working on DWP
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:29 AM Michael Eager wrote:
> On 2/26/20 1:05 AM, Pavel Labath via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
> > The main question on my mind now is, what is the likely future
> > direction of the DWARF spec -- if say DWARF v6 adds a new section, how
> > will it handle mixed v5+v6 debug_cu_in
On 2/26/20 1:05 AM, Pavel Labath via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
The main question on my mind now is, what is the likely future
direction of the DWARF spec -- if say DWARF v6 adds a new section, how
will it handle mixed v5+v6 debug_cu_indexes? I don't think it will
want to make that unsupported (1). I a
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 21:36, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:41 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, this sounds tricky, but it is actually good timing, because I
>> was just about to start working on DWP v5 in lldb. I was hoping that
>> would be an easy ride, but it looks
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:41 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
> Yeah, this sounds tricky, but it is actually good timing, because I
> was just about to start working on DWP v5 in lldb. I was hoping that
> would be an easy ride, but it looks like things will get complicated.
>
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 18:5
Yeah, this sounds tricky, but it is actually good timing, because I
was just about to start working on DWP v5 in lldb. I was hoping that
would be an easy ride, but it looks like things will get complicated.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 18:53, David Blaikie wrote:
>
> (please add anyone who has a vested
(please add anyone who has a vested interest in Split DWARF in general and
dwp in particular)
tl;dr:
How should DWARFv4 and DWARFv5 coexist in a DWP file:
1) Not at all (invalid/unsupported)
2) Single index table where the section indexes are subjective (look at the
version of the referenced CU/TU
13 matches
Mail list logo
