[Dwarf-Discuss] DW_TAG_formal_parameter question
Michael Eager
eager@eagercon.com
Fri Jun 5 20:25:51 GMT 2009
Just post the one function which corresponds to the DWARF data, along
with a dump of the corresponding DWARF for this function. Since there
is an inlined function involved, also post the DWARF for that function.
Stoyan Shopov wrote:
> Thank you for your interest and help, Mr Eager, I tried hard for some 40
> minutes to minimize the data to exhibit the problem - without success. I
> shall now attach to this message the whole directory listing that I have
> seen the problem stem from. The problematic elf has been generated by
> GNU C 4.3.2 - targeting ARM - yet the same happens with gcc 4.3.2
> targeting x86; the problem * DOES NOT OCCUR * with gcc 4.1.2 for x86. I
> am sorry to admit that I am too exhausted right now to proceed with
> experiments and investigations - it has been a long day here - in Sofia,
> Bulgaria - today, it is probably a better idea for you to simply ignore
> this message altogether, and see if I manage to produce a more concise
> and saner dump in this week end. Just some food for thought, though - I
> just noticed that there are even more peculiar artifacts in the dump -
> e.g. empty lexical blocks containing empty lexical blocks. The latest
> x86 dwarfdump output should be in the archive for you to inspect,
> hopefully the Makefile shall serve well to reproduce the whole affair.
>
> Once again, thank you, Mr Eager
>
>
> 2009/6/5 Michael Eager <eager at eagercon.com <mailto:eager at eagercon.com>>
>
> Stoyan Shopov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Lately, I have been doing some investigations of gcc dwarf debug
> information generation, and today I managed to obtain the
> following dwarfdump output for a gcc compiled object executable
> (excerpt):
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <1>< 122> DW_TAG_subprogram
> DW_AT_external yes(1)
> DW_AT_name func1
> DW_AT_decl_file 1
> /home/shopov/src/gear-201108/engine/target_test/test_0.c
> DW_AT_decl_line 79
> DW_AT_prototyped yes(1)
> DW_AT_type <74>
> DW_AT_inline DW_INL_inlined
> DW_AT_sibling <148>
> <2>< 140> DW_TAG_lexical_block
> <3>< 141> DW_TAG_formal_parameter
> DW_AT_abstract_origin <98>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know this list is not gcc specific, I just want to ask - is
> this normal - a formal parameter to be a child of (an empty)
> lexical block? I guess not, but I also could not find anything
> about that in the dwarf standard, and dwarfdump -ka does not
> report anything wrong in this respect.
>
>
> Can you post the source which corresponds to this DWARF data?
> Also, is the DWARF listing complete? Formal parameters generally
> have names.
>
> --
> Michael Eager eager at eagercon.com <mailto:eager at eagercon.com>
> 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
>
>
--
Michael Eager eager at eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
More information about the Dwarf-discuss
mailing list