On 02/05/2014 09:36 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 03:44 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 18:24 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> So now I'm not sure anything needs to change. At least dwarf_formsdata
>>> should stay as-is for gcc.
>>
>> Are you sure? I think your original analy
On 02/05/2014 11:58 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> Also, an assertion on the range of line/column is now a handled error,
> setting DWARF_E_INVALID_DWARF for values greater than INT_MAX.
Note, this is not so much INVALID as UNSUPPORTED, really, as the current
API can only deal with int values. I still t
Section 2.14 of the DWARF v3 & v4 standards specifies that all three
declaration coordinates are unsigned integer constants. DWARF v2 did
not specify signedness. Now dwarf_decl_* use dwarf_formudata to read
these values.
Also, an assertion on the range of line/column is now a handled error,
sett
On 02/05/2014 03:44 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 18:24 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
>> 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
>>
readelf does this:
GElf_Phdr *phdr = gelf_getphdr (ebl->elf, cnt, &mem);
…
if (phdr->p_type == PT_INTERP)
{
/* We can show the user the name of the interpreter. */
size_t maxsize;
char *filedata = elf_rawfile (ebl->elf, &maxsize);
if (
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 18:24 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> 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
