This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH/RFC] PR other/22313: Hot/cold sections vs. dwarf2 (take 2)


> 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
> set_loc.  [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].

Note that for truly correct DWARF, you need to separate the CFA
tables by section; in the documentation for DW_CFA_set_loc, it says:

> The new location value should always be greater than the current one.  


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]