On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Conrad Rad <cse.cem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Conrad Rad <cse.cem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Mark Wielaard <mjw@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:46:52AM -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> How about the attached patch? (I haven't yet looked at the MIPS issue,
>>> but think it reasonable to require the producer to add an explicit
>>> DW_AT_byte_size if the assumption of address size is not correct.)
>>
>> On my repro, it fixes the pointer member, but not the array-of-pointer member.
>
> Oh, wow, I misread. No, that's wrong.
>
>> struct b {
>>         char *d;
>>         void *e[3];
>> ...
>> };
>>
>> $ ./repro a.out:
>> ...
>>         agg_size(b. (type  ) d): 8, 0xffffffff
>
> This should be 0, 0x8. The size goes in the *size, return value of
> dwarf_aggregate_size() should be zero on success, not 8. The patch is
> not good as is.
>
> Thanks,
> Conrad

With the fixed patch (attached), it works:

        agg_size(b.d): 0, 0x8
        agg_size(b.e): 0, 0x18

Thanks,
Conrad