> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard writes:
Mark> Note that libdw relies on .debug_aranges. For example dwarf_addrdie (),
Mark> which returns the CU DIE containing a given address, just returns NULL
Mark> if the aranges section isn't there.
Yeah. What makes this bug theoretical is that, AFAIK, nobody
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 09:43 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> It might mean that this CU covers no addresses -- and this would be very
> convenient, since it would mean that .debug_aranges is a reliable index
> in the sense of being both complete and correct.
>
> But, because .debug_aranges is optional i
> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard writes:
Tom> There is no way to distinguish between a CU that does not have a
Tom> corresponding .debug_aranges entry, and a CU that simply has no
Tom> addresses to represent. This is ambiguous because .debug_aranges is an
Tom> optional section.
Tom> This is semi-p
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 08:50 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Tom> There are 3 indices in DWARF. AFAIK .debug_aranges doesn't really have
> Tom> problems, except one theoretical one that everybody has agreed to
> Tom> ignore. I'm not sure why I didn't just use this instead of putting the
> Tom> ranges int
Mark> IMHO the current documentation is fine, it should just be moved
Mark> to a more easily discoverable location.
Ok. I will give it a shot.
Tom> There are 3 indices in DWARF. AFAIK .debug_aranges doesn't really have
Tom> problems, except one theoretical one that everybody has agreed to
Tom> i
