[DWARF][DWP] 4GB limit

Yeah… that’s the issue I was encountering when I looked at it before my PTO. Will try to circle back to it this week.

1 Like

Just the parsing diff. Working on second one that changes internal representation of {cu,tu}-index offset to 64bit.

@dblaikie can you take a look at ⚙ D139379 [llvm][dwwarf] Change CU/TU index to 64-bit when you get a chance? :slight_smile: Would love to land it and other diff before EOY.

Also previously you mentioned you were having issues with .debug_str.dwo overflowing 4GB in DWP. Did you make any progress on the mitigation effort, or have suggestions on how to address it?

Yeah, I’ll take a look at the review - sorry it dropped through the cracks for a bit .

Yeah, we’re addressing that with -gsimple-template-names (this emits DW_AT_name for most templates as the base name, without textual template arguments - relying on the DW_TAG_template_*_parameter DIEs to carry that information alone) which I’ve implemented in Clang and @aeubanks has implemented support/fixes for in LLDB recently. We’re about ready to turn that on at Google.

@pogo59 has proposed/accepted upstream that .debug_str_offsets.dwo could use DWARF64 where the rest of the dwo/dwp uses DWARF32, so that’d be an option as well, though it hasn’t been implemented - it could even be done selectively per-.debug_str_offsets.dwo contribution, if it contains overflowed strings, which would be relatively low cost in terms of size increase of DWP files.

Thanks. I will take a look.

The @pogo59 proposal is different from the DWARF6 spec changes?

Same thing.

1 Like

@dblaikie Gentle ping on ⚙ D139379 [llvm][dwwarf] Change CU/TU index to 64-bit.
I realize it’s holiday season, and you might be busy with other stuff. Is there anyone else that I can tag to review, if you are busy?

@dblaikie ping on ⚙ D139379 [llvm][dwwarf] Change CU/TU index to 64-bit :slight_smile: