Re: Updated to respond to various email comments from Jason, Diego and Cary (issue6197069)

[Sterling Augustine <saugustine at google dot com>]

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant@google.com> wrote:
>> Hmm, I thought the convention for this sort of flag was to start with -f,
>> that -g flags were only for selecting the type and level of debug info. ?But
>> I see that there are other debug dialect switches that use -g, so I guess
>> this is OK.
>
> I kind of prefer -g, but I did notice that it's -fdebug-types-section,
> so I could go with -f[no-]pubnames (or, as Jakub suggests,
> -f[no-]debug-pubnames-section). On the other hand, there's
> -g[no-]record-gcc-switches. What would you prefer?
>
> If we change it, should we also change (in a later patch)
> -gsplit-dwarf (orig. -gfission) to -fsplit-dwarf?
>
>>> + ?if ((TREE_PUBLIC (decl) && !is_class_die (die->die_parent))
>>
>> Why not include public class members? ?Is the theory that you'll need to
>> read the type DIE anyway to do anything with the member, so you might as
>> well read it to look up the member in the first place? ?There should be a
>> comment about this.
>
> Yes, that's the theory. We're just trying to do the same thing that
> GDB does when it builds .gdb_index.
>
>>> + ?VEC_safe_push (pubname_entry, gc, pubtype_table, &e);
>>
>> Why add enumerators to pubtypes rather than pubnames? ?They seem more like
>> variables than types to me.
>
> That looks like a typo. It hasn't caused us any trouble because the
> linker just throws all the names into the same table in .gdb_index,
> but yes, I think it should go in pubnames_table.
>
> -cary

OK, I've updated the patch with all these additional comments. Just
waiting on the decision between -f and -g. I'll repost and then commit
it when that is settled--hopefully soon.

Next up, the big fission patch!

Sterling