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

[Kumar N, Bhuvanendra]

[Public]

Hi,

I went thru your latest changes and they are fine and handle the cases I was trying to push, i.e.

1. proper and correct rangelist offset address dump against DW_AT_ranges
2. in case of multiple CU's, emitting rangelist header for each CU

I was trying to use range_lists array(for DW_FORM_rnglistx) just like loc_offsets(for DW_FORM_loclistx), but fetching it from fetch_indexed_value() is the right thing while printing its value for DW_FORM_rnglistx case, because we would have read DW_AT_rnglists_base already irrespective of DW_AT_rnglists_base comes after or before DW_AT_ranges. All the code changes are fine.

I have 2 minor things to say,

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

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

$ git diff
diff --git a/binutils/dwarf.c b/binutils/dwarf.c
index b6746a21274..ec6c3ea9900 100644
--- a/binutils/dwarf.c
+++ b/binutils/dwarf.c
@@ -8203,6 +8203,7 @@ display_debug_rnglists (struct dwarf_section *section)
        putchar ('\n');
     }

+  putchar ('\n');
   return 1;
 }

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:48 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,

> As part of few dwarf-5 fixes planned to be sent one by one, I am requesting review for the next patch in this series. Patch is inlined below, also attached here.

Sorry - my own changes in this space overlap yours.  Would you mind refactoring your patch and then resubmitting it ?

Cheers
   Nick