dwarf 2.1 .debug_ranges

[Michael Eager]

Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 07:52:27PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> > As Daniel Berlin mentioned, this is handled by the non-contiguous
> > addres changes.
> 
> Yes, I've been looking at draft 5, which didn't have the
> most of the translation unit base address changes.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> What about the idea for using DW_FORM_block instead of .debug_ranges?
> Surely debug size is still a consideration...

We hashed this back and forth.  I think that we went through several
iterations on proposals before finally adopting the changes in 
.debug_ranges.   Adding relocations was not seen as desirable.

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