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: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 31 Aug 2006 17:20:49 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] PR other/22313: Hot/cold sections vs. dwarf2 (take 2)
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
> 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.