This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] A 64-bit address does not imply 64-bit DWARF2 offsets.
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:38:36 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] A 64-bit address does not imply 64-bit DWARF2 offsets.
- References: <20070221174950.GI4318@lios> <45DD72F9.90300@redhat.com>
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:39:53AM +0000, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> >2007-02-21 Carlos O'Donell <carlos@codesourcery.com>
> >
> > * dwarf2.c (_bfd_dwarf2_find_nearest_line): Assume 32-bit
> > DWARF even with 64-bit addresses.
> > (_bfd_dwarf2_find_nearest_line): Likewise.
> >
>
> Approved - please apply.
>
> Actually it might be a good idea to extend the new comment to explain
> why we assume 32-bit debug info on a 64-bit target. eg:
>
> /* In the absence of the hints above, we assume 32-bit DWARF2
> offsets even for targets with 64-bit addresses, because:
> a) most of the time these targets will not have generated
> more than 2Gb of debug info and so will not need 64-bit
> offsets,
> and
> b) if they do use 64-bit offsets but they are not using
> the size hints that are tested for above then they are
> not conforming to the DWARF3 standard anyway. */
Sounds good, I checked this in with the extended comment.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
Carlos O'Donell
CodeSourcery
carlos@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x716