dwarf 2.1 .debug_ranges

[Michael Eager]

Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> Is the dwarf 2.1 committee still meeting?

Yes.  We are trying to wrap up loose ends at the moment.

BTW, the next revision of Dwarf will be version 3.  
 
> IMO there is a serious flaw in the formulation of DW_AT_ranges
> and the associated .debug_ranges section.  The same flaw exists
> with location lists, but they're in dwarf 2.0 and therefore
> harder to fix.

As Daniel Berlin mentioned, this is handled by the non-contiguous
addres changes. 

> As far as location lists go, I'd suggest that for backward compatibility
> the begin/end ranges be relative to the compilation unit iff the
> compilation unit has a DW_AT_low_pc.  If it doesn't, as with functions
> in different sections, then the addresses should be absolute.

If functions are contiguous, then there is backward compatibility.
There is a desire to reduce the number of relocations which need
to be done by a debugger.  Where possible, relative addresses are used.

--
Michael Eager     eager@mvista.com	408-328-8426	
MontaVista Software, Inc. 1237 E. Arques Ave., Sunnyvale, CA  94085