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

David Anderson davea42@earthlink.net
Wed Feb 23 16:59:55 GMT 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 mailing list