This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Dwarf 1 or 2?
- To: egcs at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Dwarf 1 or 2?
- From: meissner at cygnus dot com
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 18:51:05 -0500 (EST)
- Reply-To: egcs at cygnus dot com
| > The dwarf 2 spec can be found in
|
| > ftp://sgigate.sgi.com/pub/dwarf
|
| > if anyone's interested in doing that work.
|
| If one was going to switch to dwarf, what would be the better dwarf to
| pick? Dwarf 1, or 2? I ask because quite a few different groups
| (processor abi groups) seem to picking up dwarf 1, and no one seems to
| be behind 2 (except Linux and sgi).
Dwarf 2 is a better debugging language. The ABI groups are going with Dwarf 1
because it is a standard, and the Dwarf 2 group got caught in the changes in
the System V world and went under before having it become a standard. The
PowerPC ABI group for instance has a bunch of changes to dwarf 1 to support C++
better. From a practical point of view, the dwarf-2 code in gcc (and possibly
gdb) is still new enough that it may still have bugs.
| I'm interested in user experiences with dwarf 2 systems, (sparc v9
| linux, iris6) with gdb and how well it holds up in relationship to
| stabs.
|