[PATCH] Handle DWARF5 DW_TAG_call_site like DW_TAG_GNU_call_site

[PATCH] Handle DWARF5 DW_TAG_call_site like DW_TAG_GNU_call_site

[Mark Wielaard]

DW_TAG_call_site and DW_TAG_call_site_parameter are the standardized
DWARF5 versions of DW_TAG_GNU_call_site and DW_TAG_GNU call_site_parameter.
Handle them the same way (which is by ignoring them).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922698
---
 dwarf_loader.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/dwarf_loader.c b/dwarf_loader.c
index ac22c1b..3bdf570 100644
--- a/dwarf_loader.c
+++ b/dwarf_loader.c
@@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ struct strings *strings;
 #define DW_TAG_GNU_call_site_parameter 0x410a
 #endif
 
+#ifndef DW_TAG_call_site
+#define DW_TAG_call_site 0x48
+#define DW_TAG_call_site_parameter 0x49
+#endif
+
 #define hashtags__fn(key) hash_64(key, HASHTAGS__BITS)
 
 bool no_bitfield_type_recode = true;
@@ -1595,6 +1600,8 @@ static int die__process_function(Dwarf_Die *die, struct ftype *ftype,
 		uint32_t id;
 
 		switch (dwarf_tag(die)) {
+		case DW_TAG_call_site:
+		case DW_TAG_call_site_parameter:
 		case DW_TAG_GNU_call_site:
 		case DW_TAG_GNU_call_site_parameter:
 			/*
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH] Handle DWARF5 DW_TAG_call_site like DW_TAG_GNU_call_site

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 01:27:31AM +0100, Mark Wielaard escreveu:
> DW_TAG_call_site and DW_TAG_call_site_parameter are the standardized
> DWARF5 versions of DW_TAG_GNU_call_site and DW_TAG_GNU call_site_parameter.
> Handle them the same way (which is by ignoring them).

Thanks, I added these two lines, plese let me know if you're not ok with
it:

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922698
Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>

 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922698
> ---
>  dwarf_loader.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/dwarf_loader.c b/dwarf_loader.c
> index ac22c1b..3bdf570 100644
> --- a/dwarf_loader.c
> +++ b/dwarf_loader.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ struct strings *strings;
>  #define DW_TAG_GNU_call_site_parameter 0x410a
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifndef DW_TAG_call_site
> +#define DW_TAG_call_site 0x48
> +#define DW_TAG_call_site_parameter 0x49
> +#endif
> +
>  #define hashtags__fn(key) hash_64(key, HASHTAGS__BITS)
>  
>  bool no_bitfield_type_recode = true;
> @@ -1595,6 +1600,8 @@ static int die__process_function(Dwarf_Die *die, struct ftype *ftype,
>  		uint32_t id;
>  
>  		switch (dwarf_tag(die)) {
> +		case DW_TAG_call_site:
> +		case DW_TAG_call_site_parameter:
>  		case DW_TAG_GNU_call_site:
>  		case DW_TAG_GNU_call_site_parameter:
>  			/*
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 

-- 

- Arnaldo

Re: [PATCH] Handle DWARF5 DW_TAG_call_site like DW_TAG_GNU_call_site

[Mark Wielaard]

On Mon, 2021-02-01 at 09:30 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 01:27:31AM +0100, Mark Wielaard escreveu:
> > DW_TAG_call_site and DW_TAG_call_site_parameter are the standardized
> > DWARF5 versions of DW_TAG_GNU_call_site and DW_TAG_GNU call_site_parameter.
> > Handle them the same way (which is by ignoring them).
> 
> Thanks, I added these two lines, plese let me know if you're not ok with
> it:
> 
> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922698
> Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>

That is of course fine.
Sorry for not adding them myself.

Thanks,

Mark

Re: [PATCH] Handle DWARF5 DW_TAG_call_site like DW_TAG_GNU_call_site

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 01:32:51PM +0100, Mark Wielaard escreveu:
> On Mon, 2021-02-01 at 09:30 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 01:27:31AM +0100, Mark Wielaard escreveu:
> > > DW_TAG_call_site and DW_TAG_call_site_parameter are the standardized
> > > DWARF5 versions of DW_TAG_GNU_call_site and DW_TAG_GNU call_site_parameter.
> > > Handle them the same way (which is by ignoring them).
> > 
> > Thanks, I added these two lines, plese let me know if you're not ok with
> > it:
> > 
> > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922698
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
> 
> That is of course fine.
> Sorry for not adding them myself.

Thanks!

- Arnaldo