Re: [PATCH RFA] DWARF v2.1 64-bit support

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>]

On Aug 3,  3:48pm, Michael Eager wrote:

> One small disclaimer:  Dwarf 2.1 is currently in draft status.  Changes
> from Dwarf 2.0 are not complete and the specification hasn't had either 
> final committee review, nor public review.  It is subject to change.

Understood.  Thanks for the warning.

> I don't anticipate that there will be changes to the 64-bit extension.  
> It is possible that the version numbering for Dwarf files may change, 
> perhaps if certain of the extensions are used.  

The code I've written doesn't rely on version numbers to do the right
thing.  Instead, it merely tests for the presence of the "escape"
value in the initial length field of certain sections.

It is my understanding that it's possible to have both 64-bit and
32-bit sections in the same file.  The code I've written should
handle this case, though I have not tested it.

> I certainly welcome real life experience with the Dwarf 2 extensions. 
> Where is there a need for Dwarf sections over 4Gb?

I haven't personally seen the need, but the vendor supplied tools
generate 64-bit DWARF2.1 sections even though they're not really
needed by any executables that I've seen.  (I too would like to
know where there's a need for sections larger than 4GB.)