From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6741 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2008 18:01:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 6645 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Mar 2008 18:01:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:01:35 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1C2983C7; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:01:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720A598140; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:01:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JeZwK-0005tB-RW; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:01:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Craig Silverstein Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Patch to handle compressed sections Message-ID: <20080326180132.GB10127@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Craig Silverstein , bauerman@br.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080325230440.BF0623F25D6@localhost> <1206547779.29533.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080326173918.E6D063F25E8@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080326173918.E6D063F25E8@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:39:18AM -0700, Craig Silverstein wrote: > We could compromise and still give the section a different name, like > .debug_info.zlib, and then store the 'nnnn' part in a .note section or > somewhere else, but I didn't see much benefit to that. Or in the beginning of .debug_info.zlib? (.zdebug_info?) I've been looking at this and wondering if block compression makes more sense; that would let an optimized consumer keep less than the whole decompressed contents in memory. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery