This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Reduce Dwarf Debug Size
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Lawrence Crowl <crowl at google dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 28 Feb 2007 18:19:41 -0800
- Subject: Re: Reduce Dwarf Debug Size
- References: <29bd08b70702271038id9865cfjd5528170d15d4282@mail.gmail.com> <796808AD-9E2E-4DD6-B817-2EFDDC1943D8@apple.com> <m3zm6y2deu.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <20070228220350.GA20232@caradoc.them.org> <m3r6s9x3kn.fsf@dhcp-172-18-118-213.corp.google.com> <20070301012445.GA31085@caradoc.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 03:30:48PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > I see Lawrence's patch as a different approach which will be useful
> > for different people. Lawrence's patch is a much smaller and simpler
> > change than a symbol database. It requires no significant change to
> > existing build systems.
>
> It's simpler, yet the option involves a specification list
> and two full pages of documentation which I read twice and still
> couldn't figure out when I'd supply which.
It would be great if you or others could suggest simplifications.
It's not like this patch is "take it or leave it."
> And it relies on source naming conventions,
> which in my humble opinion is a pretty gross thing for GCC to be doing.
I don't think that is so bad, especially since it is a common
convention in the C++ world. And of course it is optional. Again
better suggestions are welcome.
C++ debug info size is a problem for real uses of gcc. We've got a
patch on the table. We don't have to use it. But while I would love
to see a symbol database, I don't see that as a viable alternative for
all people. And it doesn't exist and it's not trivial to implement
and nobody is working on it.
Does anybody else have any concrete suggestions for how to move
forward?
Ian