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: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- 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: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:48:16 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] PR other/22313: Hot/cold sections vs. dwarf2 (take 2)
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, 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
> 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].
GAS already optimizes advance_loc4 for .eh_frame and
.debug_frame (see gas/ehopt.c), so I suggest keep using that
(when possible) and not bothering with loc1 and 2 until the
whole picture is revisited.