Issue 240618.2: DW_AT_rnglists_base missing
| Author: | David Anderson |
|---|---|
| Champion: | |
| Date submitted: | 2024-06-18 |
| Date revised: | 2024-09-24 |
| Date closed: | 2025-03-13 |
| Type: | Clarification |
| Status: | Withdrawn |
| DWARF version: | 6 |
Comparing original with 2024-09-24. [ View this version ] [ Return to the latest version ]
## BACKGROUND References are to DWARF5 unless otherwise indicated. If a split-full CU uses `DW_FORM_rnglistx`, is a `DW_AT_rnglists_base` required?
Apparently not, though in cases I have seen in object files are instances
Apparently not, since in cases I have seen in object files
of a single rnglist in `.debug_rnglists.dwo`.
with a single rnglist in `.debug_rnglists.dwo`
The operative assumption is consumers will simply assume zero as the (missing) `DW_AT_rnglists_base`.
there is no `DW_AT_rnglists_base`. The operative assumption seems to be that consumers will simply assume zero as the (missing) `DW_AT_rnglists_base`.
Seen in llvm and gcc. The intent of this proposal is to get clarity. An alternative version could state: > If a Split Full Compilation Unit > refers to `.debug_rnglists.dwo` > with `DW_FORM_rnglistx` > the CU DIE must have a `DW_AT_rnglists_base` > attribute. ## PROPOSAL At the end Sec F.1 Overview just before Table F.1: > If a Split Full Compilation Unit > refers to `.debug_rnglists.dwo` > with `DW_FORM_rnglistx` > and the correct `DW_AT_rnglists_base` > would be zero, the `DW_AT_rnglists_base` > may be omitted.
