[Dwarf-Discuss] Split Dwarf vs. CU DW_AT_ranges / DW_AT_low_pc placement

[Jakub Jelinek]

Hi!

We got a report today that GCC even for -gdwarf-5 -gsplit-dwarf uses
.debug_rnglists section + DW_AT_ranges + DW_AT_low_pc + DW_AT_rnglists_base
attributes in the DW_TAG_skeleton_unit (and then some DW_AT_ranges in
.debug_info.dwo that use DW_FORM_rnglistx, but no .debug_rnglists.dwo
section).  That is the same spot where
the DWARF 4 split DWARF extension was using, but the .debug_ranges
section wasn't really placeable into dwo files.
So, my first question is whether that is really invalid DWARF 5 or not.

LLVM seems to emit instead:
.debug_rnglists section + DW_AT_ranges + DW_AT_low_pc + DW_AT_rnglists_base
attributes in the DW_TAG_skeleton_unit (but .debug_rnglists only contains
the ranges for the whole CU) and then
.debug_rnglistsx.dwo section and DW_AT_ranges in .debug_info.dwo (not on the
DW_TAG_compile_unit though) that refer to that.

Would it be ok to emit only DW_AT_low_pc in DW_TAG_skeleton_unit and
.debug_rnglists.dwo section and DW_AT_ranges (but not DW_AT_rnglists_base)
in DW_TAG_compile_unit?  I mean, is there any benefit in having the CU
ranges on the skeleton over .debug_info.dwo?  Do split debug info consumers
need to essentially merge the attributes from the skeleton unit and
corresponding compile unit?

	Jakub