Reduce Dwarf Debug Size

[Ian Lance Taylor]

kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:

> > And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> > some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> > part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> > there at the time).
> 
> Indeed I disagree.  I'm not aware of any commercial interests on the FSF
> GCC side.  As far as I can recall, the split was between the commercial
> interests on the EGCS side and the non-commercial interests on the FSF
> side.

I don't need or want to dig this up yet again.  I'll just reaffirm
that my beliefs are what they are, and that others disagree.


> > Lacking a benevolent dictator means that "trust but verify" does not
> > work, because there is no way to implement the "verify" step.  Or,
> > rather: if "verify" fails, there is no useful action to take, except
> > in the most obvious of cases.
> 
> I disagree here too.  Anybody has the right and ability to look at a patch
> that was already committed, decide they don't like it, and say why.  And
> they can patch the patch.  We see people doing this for spelling and
> whitespace errors all the time.

Of course.  But what we can not do, in practice, is revert a patch
which does not actually break anything.  Heck, sometimes we can't even
revert a patch which *does* break things.

Ian