From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14175 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2009 03:33:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 14165 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jan 2009 03:33:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:32:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365852A9603; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:32:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id B4NNQQsfOv3j; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:32:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9FA2A95F3; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D619BE7ACD; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 07:31:52 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:33:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Support for comdat-based dwarf debug info reduction for types. Message-ID: <20090117033152.GM24105@adacore.com> References: <20081106210721.392FF1C799C@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081106210721.392FF1C799C@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00395.txt.bz2 Doug, > Hi. Here is my current patch to support comdat-based dwarf debug info > reduction for types. > > http://wiki.dwarfstd.org/index.php?title=COMDAT_Type_Sections I don't remember anyone answering your email. That's too bad, because I think that any attempt at reducing the size of debugging info is interesting. > I'm hoping someone can find some to give me a review. > The patch can't go in today as the corresponding GCC support isn't > in the main trunk yet. Regarding timing, I don't think we have to wait for GCC. As far as I can tell, this would add a functionality without disturbing the current behavior, right? Or perhaps the problem is actual testing of your code? Speaking of GCC, do you know the status of the enhancement? > This patch is incomplete in that the proposal has moved the ODR signature > from the CU header to an attribute. > This is a trivial change, relative to the entire patch. Do you have an updated version of your patch. I've mostyl been hacking the dwarf2 reader, so hopefully someone more veteran can review the code eventually, but my comments will (hopefully!) be better than nothing :). -- Joel