Re: dwarflint vs C++

[Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>]

> Right.  So why is it silent?  Oh, right, because the coverage checking 
> code is turned off by #undef.  I remember doing that, I think it was 
> something with me not being able to check NOP runs (which were often 
> uncovered IIRC).  

I don't think those should ever be there in runs longer than sh_addralign
might require.  If they are, it is probably indeed suspicious.

> I don't think I wrote checking just in the CU low_pc/high_pc range.  
> I'll do that and see how it turns out.

IMHO that's the only thing that makes sense as a default check.  Those are
ranges clearly emitted by a compiler using -g, so checking there is good.
Other ranges (e.g. crt1.o) are just not mentioned in any DWARF at all, and
that is normal.  It's good to have a switch to enable "complain if any code
has no DWARF", which e.g. I think we can try on kernel binaries or on
glibc's own statically-linked binaries (their .debug files) like ldconfig.
(There we build all the assembly with -g too, so everything should be covered.)


Thanks,
Roland