On 02/04/2014 03:12 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
> There are only a few internal dwarf_formsdata calls: for the decls as I
> mentioned, and in array_size() for DW_AT_lower/upper_bound. AFAICS the
> spec doesn't explicitly call bounds signed or unsigned, but only
> unsigned makes sense to me, so these als
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 14:54:53 Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the majority of those changes are just for old toolchains (looks like
> > gcc-4.3 is the oldest version that'll work, but that's what we've been
> > requiring in glibc for a fe
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 14:32:29 Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 10:33 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 January 2014 10:16:34 Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037051
> > > elfutils FTBFS if "-Werror=format-security" flag
On 02/04/2014 02:27 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I think you're right on both counts, but I haven't delved into the
> potential weirdness from changing sign-extension behavior.
Yeah, it's potentially nasty.
There are only a few internal dwarf_formsdata calls: for the decls as I
mentioned, and in a
I think you're right on both counts, but I haven't delved into the
potential weirdness from changing sign-extension behavior.
Hi,
I was just investigating some signed-value inconsistencies I found
between libdwarf and libdw, while working on a little experiment[1]. I
think elfutils is actually handling dwarf_formsdata incorrectly.
Libdwarf doesn't have dwarf_decl_line et al., so I was coding that bit
manually, but I go
