From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id uVaZKLbYN2AHOQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:04:54 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 922601EF78; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:04:54 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA3991E789 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:04:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F084397182F; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:04:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2F084397182F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1614272693; bh=WiI7hHsSrxho+i/GKPAWPDEPDcVEBWk7EGDwuIW6zvY=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=bGtGG14v7VtdLhcer/yKNk8QSlsLNR5dzdmVYkA1yPhmYmSnOebRG5tPPMK2ZMKM1 E2l89k/Z/vWn2FGZOG6hZtHvYcEkY8EzjD00KiAfdnniutIJ0GWAOq5+sy0C/hVIjq chzhfmYX1nuP11ncW+fVKdPLWXLczjP/chKtyjhk= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CE1397182F for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:04:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 56CE1397182F Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-493-SMiZ5NMRPDyJSPZNNpUdvw-1; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:04:44 -0500 X-MC-Unique: SMiZ5NMRPDyJSPZNNpUdvw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 886DC10082F8; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-112-160.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.112.160]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67BDA19D9C; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fche by redhat.com with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1lFK48-0003zI-Fg; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:04:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:04:40 -0500 To: Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: build-ids, .debug_sup and other IDs Message-ID: <20210225170440.GD11313@redhat.com> References: <20210221231810.1062175-1-tom@tromey.com> <20210224150752.GA23884@tarox.wildebeest.org> <87a6rt1b12.fsf@tromey.com> <20210225164245.GC11313@redhat.com> <20210225164840.GJ4020736@tucnak> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210225164840.GJ4020736@tucnak> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "Frank Ch. Eigler via Gdb-patches" Reply-To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , Tom Tromey , dwz@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Hi - > For dwz --dwarf-5, if it produced a .note.gnu.build-id, it would produce > the same one, but I thought that if I produced that, then consumers could > keep using that instead of .debug_sup which is the only thing defined > in the standard, so in the end dwz --dwarf-5 only produces .debug_sup > on both the referrers side and on the side of supplemental object file > as DWARF specifies. Right, but build-ids are still in normal binaries -- just not the dwz-commonized files created by "dwz --dwarf-5"? So our toolchains still process build-ids routinely for all the other uses. By omitting the build-id on the dwz-generated files, we're forcing a flag day on all our consumer tools. (Does dwz'd dwarf5 even work on gdb etc. now?) ISTM tool backward compatibility is more important, so I would suggest dwz generate -both- identifiers. - FChE