This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: incorrect signed data

On 02/05/2014 09:36 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 03:44 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 18:24 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> So now I'm not sure anything needs to change.  At least dwarf_formsdata
>>> should stay as-is for gcc.
>> Are you sure? I think your original analysis is correct that
>> dwarf_formsdata () is wrong and really should sign-extend.
> No, see above; GCC wrote signed index 199 into a data1:199, so it would
> be wrong to sign-extend this.  We're at the mercy of the producer.

Here's gdb precedent for the status quo, not sign-extending, in the
comment right before dwarf2_const_value_data in gdb/dwarf2read.c:

/* Given an attr with a DW_FORM_dataN value in host byte order,
   zero-extend it as appropriate for the symbol's type.  The DWARF
   standard (v4) is not entirely clear about the meaning of using
   DW_FORM_dataN for a constant with a signed type, where the type is
   wider than the data.  The conclusion of a discussion on the DWARF
   list was that this is unspecified.  We choose to always zero-extend
   because that is the interpretation long in use by GCC.  */

current source:;a=blob;f=gdb/dwarf2read.c;h=54c538af5fb8df8e569ebc3d9194997607b8898c;hb=HEAD#l17774

original commit:;a=commitdiff;h=053315c2134b7832b351c599fa3fa11abf6ca4e7;hp=3ce3b1ba3153a2fc9265ba78cc25acaa7db127ba

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]