This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [Dwarf-Discuss] Asm syntax for DWARF 5 line table info
- From: <paul dot robinson at sony dot com>
- To: <nickc at redhat dot com>, <dwarf-discuss at lists dot dwarfstd dot org>
- Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:57:41 +0000
- Subject: RE: [Dwarf-Discuss] Asm syntax for DWARF 5 line table info
- References: <E3B07FDB86BFF041819DC057DEED8FEA0134155D47@USCULXMSG13.am.sony.com> <ea5a8824-5af6-91c6-b6ad-655b8c3cbeda@redhat.com>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
cc binutils
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Clifton [mailto:nickc@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 6:18 AM
> To: Robinson, Paul; dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
> Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Asm syntax for DWARF 5 line table info
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > I have been working on adding DWARF 5 support to LLVM, and some of
> > that support requires some assembler syntax tweaks. It has been
> > suggested that I publicize those tweaks outside of the LLVM world,
> > and this list seems like the most likely place to find the people
> > who would be most interested in agreeing on a common syntax.
>
> I think that it would also be wise to include the binutils project
> (binutils@sourceware.org) as they are responsible for the GNU
> Assembler (gas).
>
> > I propose to add a new optional clause to the .file directive, like so:
> >
> > .file filenumber [ "directory" ] "path" [ md5 checksum ]
> >
> > where md5 is a keyword and checksum is the integer checksum,
> > typically expressed as a hex 128-bit value.
> >
> > If all .file directives provide an md5 checksum, then the assembler
> > will put that checksum into the DWARF 5 file table.
>
> If there are discrepancies in the md5 checksums, what should the assembler
> do ?
In LLVM, I have the assembler issue a warning if it sees inconsistent use
of the md5 clause. It's not an error, because I do see it happen when
the compiler is reading a preprocessed file, and the assembler can't tell
the difference between something the compiler produced and a mistake made
by human coding.
Thanks,
--paulr
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
>