Issue 161120.1: Indexing into location and range lists sections

Author: Ron Brender
Champion: Ron Brender
Date submitted: 2016-11-20
Date revised:
Date closed:
Type: Ambiguity
Status: Rejected
DWARF Version: 5
Section Various, pg Various
Background
----------

On October 18, Jakub raised several questions regarding certain 
aspects of the new location lists and range lists representations 
described in Section 2.6.2 and 2.17.3. My reply of October 19
clarified all but one of those issues--some minor editorial
changes were made in the document to be distributed early December. 
One topic, however, having to do with the size of the offsets 
region in .debug_loclists and .debug_rnglists sections, turns 
out to be more than editorial.

My email of October 23 layed out three alternatives to resolve
the matter. Briefly, they are

!) Allow any count from zero to greater than the number of lists.
2) Allow a count of zero as an alternative to the actual number
of lists, in which case DW_FORM_sec_offset must be used to select
a list.
3) Stick with the current wording requiring the count be exactly
the number of lists, in which case there is no reason to even
allow DW_FORM_sec_offset to select a list (because DW_AT_secx is 
better).

I discounted 1) as excess generality, then asked anyone who supported
2) to speak up. No one did. Accordingly, this proposal details
the changes needed to adopt 3).

Proposed Changes
----------------

- Section 7.5.5, p211, line 7: delete "loclist" and "rnglist".

- Section 7.5.5, p214, description of class loclist: delete second 
  bullet and combine first bullet with the lead-in phrase to form
  a single paragraph.
  
- Section 7.7.5, p215, description of class rnglist: delete second 
  bullet and combine first bullet with the lead-in phrase to form
  a single paragraph.
  
- Section 7.5.6, p219, Table 7.6: remove loclist and rnglist from
  the classes that include DW_FORM_sec_offset.
  
- Appendix B, p274: remove mention of DW_FORM_sec_offset from 
  list item (j) on line 7, item (io) on line 26 and item (jo) on
  line 32.
  


--

Rejected 1/3/2107.
See replacement proposal 161230.1.