This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH/RFC] PR other/22313: Hot/cold sections vs. dwarf2 (take 2)
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:03:17 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] PR other/22313: Hot/cold sections vs. dwarf2 (take 2)
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 07:28:31AM -0600, Roger Sayle wrote:
> I propose to apply this patch to mainline [and the 4.1 branch] in a
> few days, unless one of our debugging guru's can point out a flaw in
> my interpretation of dwarf-2 specification that seems to imply that
> advance_loc* can advance from either the previous advance_loc* or
You are correct.
> [I'm also curious whether binutils/gcc can/should perform
> advance_loc relaxation. Currently we always emit advance_loc4, but
> for small deltas we could reduce the size of debugging information
> by using advance_loc1 and/or advance_loc2].
In general, we should. Some targets may not want to however; this
depends on what other relaxations are performed at link time, and on
what relocations are available. I suspect we'd get more benefit from
having the linker do this than gcc.