Comment 31 for bug 1995274

(In reply to Lubos Lunak from comment #28)
> The 7 patches should be applied in the order they
> are attached. You appear to be applying them based on their subject line,
> but those got meaningless as I was adding and updating the patches and I
> didn't realize somebody might look at those (I don't know if I'd ever
> submitted several patches as actual patches before).

Ah, sorry, I assumed because they were numbered one to seven that was the order to review them.
So I reviewed, tested and applied the first four numbered ones. What would be correct order for the next three patches/attachements?

> > And if so, should we have an skip_Form_contents function that can be used in both places?
>
> I don't know what you mean, I see no need for such a function.

Just to make sure that whenever we skip an attribute we always do it the same way.
So skip_Form_contents would basically be:

         if(form == DW_FORM_addrx || form == DW_FORM_strx
            || form == DW_FORM_rnglistx || form == DW_FORM_loclistx) {
            /* Skip without interpreting them, they may depend on e.g.
               DW_AT_addr_base that has not been read yet. */
            (void) get_ULEB128(c_die);
         } else
            get_Form_contents( &cts, cc, c_die, False /*td3*/,
                               &abbv->nf[nf_i] );

And it could then also have a simplified get_Form_contents inlined that really just skips the values.