[Dwarf-Discuss] Default Location List Entry Issue 130121.1

Mark Wielaard mjw at redhat.com
Thu Apr 24 01:38:57 PDT 2014

Hi Michael,

On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 06:54 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 04/23/14 04:46, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >> An alternate might be to include a location list entry for the range
> >> where the object is not available and have that contain a zero-length
> >> location list.  That would be non-standard, but I think that any
> >> consumer would reasonable interpret this as location not available.
> >
> > That could work. It just needs a bit more work on the producer side to
> > know whether using a default location entry plus filling in "the
> > gaps" (and start and end range) results in a smaller location list.
> > Could that be made into "standard behavior" and recommended as best
> > practice when using a default location entries?
> The best practice is to use the default location list entry as it was
> intended and as documented.

I don't think that is a very useful way to document the best practice.
If it was perfectly clear what the intention of the producer and
interpretation of the consumer was when using a default location list
entry then we wouldn't be having this conversation :)

I do like you suggestion to make the producer be able to provide
complete range information for the location list that uses a default
entry and would be happy to work on wording a proposal that would make
that into something standard.

It would also be good to have some examples of location lists using
default entries that clearly convey the intention of the producer and
how to interpret them by the consumer.



More information about the Dwarf-Discuss mailing list