[Dwarf-Discuss] debug_aranges use and overhead

[Samy Al Bahra]

At this point, performance is good enough for our use-case, no qualms from
me.


On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 4:10 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
>


-- 
Samy Al Bahra [http://repnop.org]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dwarfstd.org/pipermail/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org/attachments/20220614/16811330/attachment.html>