[Dwarf-Discuss] Line table "no-op" sequence, leb length

[paul.robinson@sony.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Anderson [mailto:davea42 at linuxmail.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:48 PM
> To: Robinson, Paul
> Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Line table "no-op" sequence, leb length
> 
> On 04/26/2018 10:04 AM, Paul Robinson via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
> > I don't think it's abuse of the format at all, as long as you don't go
> > over the reasonable maximum length. There's nothing in the spec that
> > requires an LEB128 to be minimum length,

(That was Cary, not me, making the suggestion.)

> 
> Ten bytes is the maximum sane leb length in libdwarf.
> Would that fit the 'reasonable maximum length' criterion?
> 
> If not ten ...what is the reasonable maximum?
> Should the next version of DWARF specify  a maximum length?
> 
> DavidA.

Anyone can propose anything.  Ten covers the maximum 64-bit value.
I could see a non-normative remark in the description of LEB128
being beneficial; not sure we'd want to make it a hard requirement.
--paulr