[Dwarf-Discuss] question about [0x0..0xffffffff] location list entry

[David Anderson]

On 02/23/2011 06:35 AM, Moore, David wrote:
> So ends of ranges that are just bigger than the size of memory are 
> conceivable and if we specify how arithmetic works here, we should say 
> it uses universals (in the Ada sense)

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).

This seems to me to be a restriction (and simplification) of no 
practical detriment. And it means
existing documentation (of DWARF) remains correct.

We already restrict the size of 32bit offset DWARF sections so they 
cannot necessarily use the last few bytes
of a section  (the 64bit extension stuff, Section 7.4 in DWARF3/4) as 
that was deemed harmless.

DavidA.