Re: patch to improve i386 epilogue (version 4)

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <199810081857.LAA07960@smtp.earthlink.net>you write:
  > Which brings us back to a question I raised quite some time ago.  On
  > Linux/GNU, compiling -ggdb generates DWARF2, while -g generates stabs.
  > 
  > The GCC documentation says:
  > 
  > `-g'
  >      Produce debugging information in the operating system's native
  >      format (stabs, COFF, XCOFF, or DWARF).  GDB can work with this
  >      debugging information.
  > 
  > Since GDB is the native debugger on Linux, I think the present
  > situation is inconsistent.  (This situation probably exists on other
  > x86 systems that ship with GDB, but I'm not as familiar with them.)
Why is it inconsistent?  As long as gcc uses stabs, the native format for
Linux is stabs.  This is quite different than (for example) gcc on x86-solaris
where the system has a native format that is not controlled by gcc.


IMHO, the decision to switch default formats on such systems ought to depend
on whether or not the new format provides significant advantages without losing
any existing functionality.

I can see the *potential* for improvements using the dwarf2 format, but at
the current time neither gcc nor gdb are set up to take advantage of the
richer debug format provided by dwarf2 (in some cases the debugger needs
updating, in others the compiler, in a few, both).

jeff