This is the mail archive of the
elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: [patch] Add printing of .gdb_index section to readelf
- From: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:26:05 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] Add printing of .gdb_index section to readelf
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 into .gdb_index; maybe I was too worried about this theoretical
> Tom> problem. (Changing this might be a decent way to shrink .gdb_index.)
>
> Mark> What is the theoretical problem?
>
> There is no way to distinguish between a CU that does not have a
> corresponding .debug_aranges entry, and a CU that simply has no
> addresses to represent. This is ambiguous because .debug_aranges is an
> optional section.
>
> This is semi-pathological, and anyway I think we all agreed to just
> ignore it.
I recently made a change to what gcc outputs for an "address less" CU:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02286.html
Such a CU will not have a low_pc attribute. Maybe that helps?
Cheers,
Mark