[PATCH] Fix range lists issues (dwarf-5)

[Kumar N, Bhuvanendra]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> So unless you have a strong objection I would like to leave the code in its current state.

Sure, its fine for me as well. thanks

Regards,
bhuvan

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> 
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 6:53 PM
To: Kumar N, Bhuvanendra <Bhuvanendra.KumarN@amd.com>; binutils@sourceware.org
Cc: George, Jini Susan <JiniSusan.George@amd.com>; Natarajan, Kavitha <Kavitha.Natarajan@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix range lists issues (dwarf-5)

[CAUTION: External Email]

Hi Kumar,

> 1. in the cases where we fetch values from fetch_indexed_addr(), should we use "addr_index" or "index" itself is fine? because we are fetching it from .debug_addr and emitting. I meant for DW_FORM_loclistx and DW_FORM_rnglistx using index is fine, for else part should we use addr_index or index?
>
> Before fix:     <24>   DW_AT_low_pc      : (addr_index: 0x0): 201e40
> After fix:     <24>   DW_AT_low_pc      : (index: 0x0): 201e40

This is debatable.  All of the forms are indices (indexes ?) of some kind so using the generic term "index" seems appropriate to me.  If we instead use "addr_index" for address indices then shouldn't we use "loclist_index"
and "rnglist_index" for the others ?

Also in the current 2.38 binutils release (and earlier releases) we use "addr_index" by default, but in wide mode we use just "index", which made no sense to me.

So unless you have a strong objection I would like to leave the code in its current state.


> 2. in the new function(display_debug_rnglists) added, newline 
> character printing is missing

Thanks - added.

Cheers
   Nick