[Dwarf-Discuss] debug_aranges use and overhead

[David Blaikie]

Here's the posted issue: https://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=220724.1

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 10:56 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Posted an issue to the dwarfstd.org to propose removing
> .debug_aranges, will follow up with a link here once it's
> accepted/posted publicly.
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 2:02 PM Greg Clayton <clayborg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > As long as there is a DW_AT_ranges on the CU the is complete, that is good enough for LLDB. No one seems to consistently emit .debug_aranges these days so we definitely don't rely on it.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > > On Jun 14, 2022, at 1:10 PM, David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss <dwarf-discuss at lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Given the discussion previously in this thread - does anyone have
> > > particular objections to removing .debug_aranges? (in favor of/perhaps
> > > with specific wording that /requires/ CU level ranges to be specified
> > > (ie: it's not acceptable to have a subprogram with non-empty range in
> > > a CU which doesn't cover that range) - so a consumer can look at the
> > > CU and, if it has no ranges, conclude that it has no addresses covered
> > > and skip the CU for address-related computation purposes)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
> > > Dwarf-Discuss at lists.dwarfstd.org
> > > http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
> >