> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard writes:
Mark> For completeness, should it also include DW_OP_form_tls_address
Mark> (although gcc seems to emit DW_OP_GNU_push_tls_address) and
Mark> DW_OP_bit_piece (which gcc doesn't seem to emit)?
GCC doesn't emit it now, but maybe only because GDB doesn't suppor
> For completeness, should it also include DW_OP_form_tls_address
> (although gcc seems to emit DW_OP_GNU_push_tls_address) and
> DW_OP_bit_piece (which gcc doesn't seem to emit)?
Yah
___
elfutils-devel mailing list
elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
Hi Roland,
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 12:11 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> What I'd had in mind was just that the interpretation of location
> expressions in the application would use the CFI interfaces explicitly.
Thanks, that wasn't too hard at all indeed. I added support for
DW_OP_call_frame_cfa to
> What would be the plan to handle DW_OP_call_frame_cfa? Should
> dwarf_getlocation() just return it (as in the patch below) and let the
> caller deal with it through dwarf_getcfi(), dwarf_cfi_addrframe() and
> dwarf_frame_cfa()? Or should dwarf_getlocation() be extended to do some
> of this magic
Hi,
What would be the plan to handle DW_OP_call_frame_cfa? Should
dwarf_getlocation() just return it (as in the patch below) and let the
caller deal with it through dwarf_getcfi(), dwarf_cfi_addrframe() and
dwarf_frame_cfa()? Or should dwarf_getlocation() be extended to do some
of this magic for t
