I see, so high level will check if there are addresses in CUs that
covering, and will only issue missing-section warning then. I dropped
the message for now.
Right. It will just check each CU's range-list (can be empty) and complain
if the .debug_arange set matching the CU is !=.
> You do a connectivity check for the CU pointers. It would also
> to do a "suspicious" check that there aren't multiple separate sets
> pointing to the same CU. It is not clearly invalid per se to have
> multiples, but it is clearly weird. Our high-level checks probably won't
> try to account for multiple sets for a CU being correct.
Done. Should I do similar check for pubnames/pubtypes?
Yes, I think so.
That's how it's done. I think you may have been looking at
pubnames/pubtypes validation instead.
Hmm, must have been. Sorry.