[Dwarf-Discuss] debug_aranges use and overhead

[Greg Clayton]

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