From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id DC2543858CDA; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 15:47:52 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DC2543858CDA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1675784872; bh=4+FepyhTd0CCvbY/uCAOAAYstFYathpQproPX7wfdqo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Oy8iFhUb4k+Drz5rifTm/x8jKJ9zG+F0P2JTEfCSgVtcYMJ2va2qz5kdMAv4bawRt edw3nHcip//sbSG3LseCIuKUUfFgqhJJHQJcqjpNQBRtAGBNpco36S0x6P9AbKHSCc tN77Elh9nRL+ypBKO9tCzV13RW3qiPWPaNI0vJwI= From: "mark at klomp dot org" To: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libdw/30047] libdw unable to handle DW_TAG_unspecified_type Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:47:52 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: elfutils X-Bugzilla-Component: libdw X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mark at klomp dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mark at klomp dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.isobsolete attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30047 Mark Wielaard changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #14633|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard --- Created attachment 14657 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D14657&action=3Ded= it backends: Handle DW_TAG_unspecified_type in dwarf_peeled_die_type (In reply to Martin Liska from comment #5) > May I please ping this issue as one needs it with the latest binutils > release (2.40). Yes, thanks. I didn't forget, but I changed my mind how to best handle this issue. See the new patch. This changes the code so that an DW_TAG_unspecified_type= is treated just as if the function doesn't have a return type. I think that is= a better fix because there might be more code out there that uses dwfl_module_return_value_location and might not handle an error in this cas= e. And there isn't actually much that can be done with an unspecified type, for normal cases it is as if there is no return type. I did adjust the testcase to show how you can see whether it is a missing return type or an unspecified return type in case you program does care. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=