stabs and macro information
Daniel Berlin
dberlin@dberlin.org
Wed Apr 16 21:18:00 GMT 2003
On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 01:27 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:58:19AM -0400, David Taylor wrote:
>> Currently, when invoked with -gdwarf-2 -g3, gcc will record macro
>> information in a .debug_macinfo elf section. And when presented with
>> an executable containing macro information in a .debug_macinfo
>> section, gdb will make use of it.
>>
>> Many companies, including EMC, still use stabs. So... it would be
>> nice if the same was true of stabs.
>
> A more interesting question, to me, is why EMC still needs to use
> stabs.
I didn't want to get into this argument, as there are companies that
have valid reasons not to use DWARF2 given the current implementations,
particularly those compaonies that end up with 1 gigabyte with stabs
info, and 5 gigabytes with dwarf2 info, or something like that.
However, I was going to ask whether the cost of *adding* more features
to the STABS implementations in gdb and gcc is worth the future
maintenance cost at this point in the life of STABS.
> They are an inferior debug format, extremely hard to parse or
> extend. GCC's and GDB's current implementations of DWARF-2 (and 3) are
> somewhat lacking, but it's all fixable.
And, more importantly, in the process of being fixed.
:)
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
More information about the Gcc
mailing list