[PATCH] Handle DW_FORM_implicit_const for DW_AT_decl_line

Jakub Jelinek jakub@redhat.com
Sun Feb 14 19:19:43 GMT 2021

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 08:10:49PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Yes, this makes sense. Like you said, we do something like this already
> for decl/call_file. I think technically the die_eq_1 part could be put
> under the same switch case. But maybe you find it clearer to do it
> separately to mirror the checksum_die part?

Yeah, I'm wondering if we just shouldn't hash and compare all constant class
forms with the same value the same (ok, except DW_FORM_data16 which is too
large).  For DW_FORM_data{1,2,4,8} we don't know if it is signed or
unsigned, so perhaps just treat values with the msb clear that way?
Or sure, if we can put in a list of attributes that always have unsigned
or always have signed constants, we can even improve that.


More information about the Dwz mailing list