[PATCH v2] DWARF: Check version >= 3 for DW_FORM_ref_addr
Alan Modra
amodra@gmail.com
Fri Mar 19 01:32:13 GMT 2021
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 06:14:02AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:14 PM Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 09:25:51PM -0700, H.J. Lu via Binutils wrote:
> > > --- a/bfd/dwarf2.c
> > > +++ b/bfd/dwarf2.c
> > > @@ -3420,10 +3420,14 @@ scan_unit_for_symbols (struct comp_unit *unit)
> > > /* Avoid multiple reports of the same missing abbrev. */
> > > if (abbrev_number != previous_failed_abbrev)
> > > {
> > > - _bfd_error_handler
> > > - (_("DWARF error: could not find abbrev number %u"),
> > > - abbrev_number);
> > > + /* NB: DWARF5 may have references to other CUs. */
> > > + if (unit->version < 5)
> > > + _bfd_error_handler
> > > + (_("DWARF error: could not find abbrev number %u"),
> > > + abbrev_number);
> > > previous_failed_abbrev = abbrev_number;
> > > + if (unit->version >= 5)
> > > + goto skip;
> > > }
> > > bfd_set_error (bfd_error_bad_value);
> > > goto fail;
> >
> > This doesn't feel right to me. Why are we looking for an abbrev in
> > the wrong CU? Presumably if the reader can do that, then it might
> > interpret a lower number abbrev wrongly.
>
> Here is the updated patch to replace
>
> if (unit->version == 3 || unit->version == 4)
>
> with
>
> if (unit->version >= 3)
>
> for DWARF5 or above. OK for master?
Yes thanks.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
More information about the Binutils
mailing list