The changes to include/dwarf2.h were accepted by binutils and have gone in, so I've removed those changes from this patch. Is this ok to commit? -- Caroline cmtice@google.com On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:22 PM Caroline Tice wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 6:04 AM Simon Marchi wrote: >> >> On 2020-07-21 12:06 a.m., Caroline Tice wrote: >> > The DWARF v5 Spec describes a (slightly) new format for V5 .dwp files. >> > This patch updates GDB to allow it to read/process .dwp files in the >> > new DWARF v5 format, while continuing to be able to read/process .dwp >> > files in the older V1 & V2 formats. >> >> Can you please describe in the commit message what those differences are? >> > > Done. > >> >> > The one thing I felt a little odd about in this patch: I couldn't >> > re-use the enum dwarf_sect >> > definitions, because in version 5 several of the sections have the >> > same name as in the previous versions, but have a different ordering, >> > with different numbers attached. So I had to create a new enum, >> > dwarf_sect_v5 for this purpose. >> >> That part would need to be cross-posted to the binutils mailing list. binutils >> does use the DW_SECT_* enumerators, presumably to read dwp files too, so they >> would likely use those new DWARF 5 enumerators eventually. >> > > I will create/submit a patch to the binutils mailing list. > >> >> > Is this patch ok to commit? >> >> It would be useful to precise somewhere, perhaps in the comment on `struct dwp_sections`. >> that versions 1 and 2 are pre-standard versions, and that version 5 was introduced in >> DWARF5. And that versions 3 and 4 don't exist. > > > Done. > >> >> >> I don't have time to do an in-depth review right now, but one question that came to mind >> is: is an advantage of having virtual_v2_or_v5_dwo_sections over having separate >> virtual_v2_dwo_sections and virtual_v5_dwo_sections? > > > Not particularly; I was just trying to avoid code duplication. > >> >> Now when using v2 or v5, there are >> fields you don't use (because they are either v2-specific or v5-specific), so I imagine >> it's just more error prone. Does it avoid a lot of code duplication? > > > A small amount, but not a lot. > >> >> >> Simon > > > Below is my updated patch (mostly just updated comments & commit message)