From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (wildebeest.demon.nl [212.238.236.112]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA1073857C5C for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:42:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org BA1073857C5C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mark@klomp.org Received: from tarox.wildebeest.org (tarox.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62071300B301; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:42:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tarox.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4B99540006CA; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:42:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Handle DW_FORM_data16. From: Mark Wielaard To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: dwz@sourceware.org Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:42:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20200924194333.GP2176@tucnak> References: <20200924162557.15870-1-mark@klomp.org> <20200924162557.15870-3-mark@klomp.org> <20200924194333.GP2176@tucnak> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-8.el7) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: dwz@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Dwz mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:42:26 -0000 Hi, On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 21:43 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 06:25:55PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > @@ -1709,6 +1710,9 @@ skip_attr_no_dw_form_indirect (unsigned int > > cu_version, uint32_t form, > > case DW_FORM_ref_sig8: > > ptr +=3D 8; > > break; > > + case DW_FORM_data16: > > + ptr +=3D 16; > > + break; > > case DW_FORM_sdata: > > case DW_FORM_ref_udata: > > case DW_FORM_udata: > > @@ -2975,6 +2979,9 @@ checksum_die (DSO *dso, dw_cu_ref cu, > > dw_die_ref top_die, dw_die_ref die) > > die->die_no_multifile =3D 1; > > ptr +=3D 8; > > break; > > + case DW_FORM_data16: > > + ptr +=3D 16; > > + break; >=20 > Also, wonder if DW_FORM_ref_sig8 has a separate case from DW_FORM_data8, = if > it wouldn't be more readable to stick DW_FORM_data16 case below the > DW_FORM_data8 one. When both are the same case, that isn't possible of c= ourse. In the case of skip_attr_no_dw_form_indirect DW_FORM_ref8, DW_FORM_data8 and DW_FORM_ref_sig8 are the same case (and DW_FORM_data16 immediately follows that case), but in the case of checksym_die they are different cases. I moved DW_FORM_data16 right after DW_FORM_data8 in that case. > Otherwise LGTM. Thanks, Mark