From 16e08520e6027df4bf1934abbfd5e1a088ffb69c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gabriele Svelto Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 00:59:34 +0200 Subject: Add support for parsing the DW_AT_ranges attributes This enables the DWARF reader to properly parse DW_AT_ranges attributes in compilation units and functions. Code covered by a function is now represented by a vector of ranges instead of a single contiguous range and DW_AT_ranges entries are used to populate it. All the code and tests that assumed functions to be contiguous entities has been updated to reflect the change. DW_AT_ranges attributes found in compilation units are parsed but no data is generated for them as it is not currently needed. BUG=754 Change-Id: I310391b525aaba0dd329f1e3187486f2e0c6d442 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1124721 Reviewed-by: Ted Mielczarek --- configure | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) (limited to 'configure') diff --git a/configure b/configure index e0187ddc..d8099cd8 100755 --- a/configure +++ b/configure @@ -6098,7 +6098,7 @@ else We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; @@ -6144,7 +6144,7 @@ else We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; @@ -6168,7 +6168,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; @@ -6213,7 +6213,7 @@ else We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; @@ -6237,7 +6237,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; -- cgit v1.2.1