[Dwarf-Discuss] question about [0x0..0xffffffff] location list entry
davea42 at earthlink.net
Wed Feb 23 08:59:55 PST 2011
On 02/23/2011 08:51 AM, David Anderson wrote:
> Or we could just admit the last byte (addressable unit) of memory
> cannot necessarily be attributed correctly
> and leave it at that. (Meaning the range end of 0xffffffff, need not
> allow +1 in loclist ranges in
> 32bit-offset-dwarf, etc).
Well, I conflated offset with address-range in the above sentence, but
nevertheless I guess
it is obvious I think DWARF does not need to handle that last byte
I always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
-- Jane Wagner
More information about the Dwarf-Discuss