Re: Suspected bug in DW_OP_addr handling

> My understanding is:

Thanks for the detailed explanation!

>
>  - normally, a value given by DW_OP_addr is an address that should be
>    relocated with the base address of the objfile

OK, this is my confusion I guess. I guess I wasn't sure what "address"
refers to in the dwarf spec.
I now see that dwarf spec has a section dedicated to relocation (7.3)
and it mentions that dw_op_addr should be relocated. I was previously
confused by the "constant address" in table 7.9 in 7.7.1 and assumed
that it is the full address.

The following then all makes sense.

>  - the DW_OP_GNU_push_tls_address operation (now called
>    DW_OP_form_tls_address in DWARF 5) expects some kind of value on top
>    of the stack, identifying the TLS variable to fetch.  It's
>    implementation-defined what this value means, but in practice it
>    means it's some value that should not be relocated.
>  - a contemporary version of GCC produces something like this for a TLS
>    variable's DW_AT_location:
>
>      DW_OP_const8u 0x4, DW_OP_form_tls_address
>
>  - A version of gcc in the past must have used this instead:
>
>      DW_OP_addr 0x4, DW_OP_form_tls_address
>
> The usage of DW_OP_addr was wrong, and it made so GDB had to avoid
> relocating the DW_OP_addr value in this particular case.  So it is
> checking, if we have DW_OP_addr followed by DW_OP_form_tls_address, then
> we don't relocate, because we are in this buggy situation.
>
> And so the condition:
>
>           if (op_ptr >= op_end || *op_ptr != DW_OP_GNU_push_tls_address)
>             result += this->m_per_objfile->objfile->text_section_offset ();
>
> looks right to me.  It says, only relocate if:
>
>  - DW_OP_addr is the last operation of the sequence
>  - the following op is not DW_OP_form_tls_address / DW_OP_GNU_push_tls_address
>
> Simon