[Dwarf-Discuss] More on DW_AT_str_offset_base debug_str_offsets.dwo confusion

[David Anderson]

On 8/31/20 8:39 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> Hmm... yeah. I guess LLVM implements rnglistx /rnglist_base the same
> as strx/str_offsets_base. Where it assumes that any *x encoding refers
> to entities in the .dwo, even in the absence of a
> rnglists_base/str_offsets_base in the split full unit. I had thought
> we'd implemented it to emit a rnglists_base in the split full unit,
> which would've been in contrast to the str_offsets_base - so my
> mistake/apologies for the previous description.

So the base addresses are in the skeleton and the actual section
(rnglists/loclists/str_offsets/str)
can go with Split Full (i.e, in a .dwo) if it has no addresses but must
go with the skeleton if has addresses.

Ok.

This way the standard is not in error as written.? This understanding
restricts what information can be derived from
the Split Full CU by itself (ie, without the skeleton) a bit since the
base addresses are not in the Split Full CU DIE.

Mike Eager: please delete the new issue 200831.1 as it is simply wrong.

DavidA