This is the mail archive of the elfutils-devel@sourceware.org mailing list for the elfutils project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Roland McGrath wrote: > Two things occur to me wrt .debug_aranges validation: > > It's not an automatic error if there is no .debug_aranges section (or a > completely empty one). It's a high-level check that the aranges match the > CUs--but you can legitimately have just CUs that don't have any addresses. I see, so high level will check if there are addresses in CUs that need covering, and will only issue missing-section warning then. I dropped the message for now. > You do a connectivity check for the CU pointers. It would also be useful > to do a "suspicious" check that there aren't multiple separate sets > pointing to the same CU. It is not clearly invalid per se to have > multiples, but it is clearly weird. Our high-level checks probably won't > try to account for multiple sets for a CU being correct. Done. Should I do similar check for pubnames/pubtypes? > Also, now that I look at your aranges code, I assume you either haven't > tested it yet or haven't pushed the current code. The "Covered length" > parsing is totally bogus. What follows the CU offset are two single bytes > (address_size, segment_size), not another offset-size value that's a > length. What you should check there is that the address_size matches the > address_size in the CU header, and that the segment_size is 0. That's how it's done. I think you may have been looking at pubnames/pubtypes validation instead. PM
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |