From lazarus at mfriebe.de Sat May 2 13:38:40 2026 From: lazarus at mfriebe.de (Martin Frb) Date: Sat, 2 May 2026 13:38:40 +0200 Subject: [fpc-devel] RECENT Commit breaking FpDebug - Dwarf / and not even fully fixing the original issue In-Reply-To: <01123c38-fe7d-4645-8d64-fb1e4f72e5c0@freepascal.org> References: <07796983-bda9-433d-9f4c-2b7f203a824a@mfriebe.de> <01123c38-fe7d-4645-8d64-fb1e4f72e5c0@freepascal.org> Message-ID: <2e1ca0da-c330-4dd4-93e5-47cb00ba4576@mfriebe.de> On 30/04/2026 00:50, Pierre Muller via fpc-devel wrote: > > ? I tried recently to use dwarfdump, a standard unix utility, > and this tool does indeed list a few issues with > the DWARF information generated by Free Pascal. > > ? I didn't have time to investigate these issues. I just did try myself. The list definitely includes false positives. dwarfdump [Mar ?6 2026 19:38:46 (libdwarf 2.3.1 dwarfdump 2.3.1)] And the latest 3.3.1 fpc Proof? *** DWARF CHECK: DW_TAG_compile_unit -> DW_TAG_interface_type: tag-tree relation is not standard. *** 1) The dwarf docs don't say anything that wouldn't allow this. And as other types are declared in the CU, where else should an intf be? 2) From dwarfdump sources https://github.com/avast/libdwarf/blob/master/libdwarf/dwarfdump/tag_tree.list 2a) > ?Since DWARF is generally descriptive, not prescriptive, > ? ? this list is at best a current understanding of > ? ? appropriate practice.? Moreover the the dwarf standard > ? ? does not actually list the tag-tag dependencies. > ? ? So mistakes in the list below is certainly possible. 2b) DW_TAG_interface_type is not listed as possible child to any of the other tags. It is only listed as a parent specifying which children it can have. So given the list in the above file, it couldn't be used anywhere at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: