Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Taylor <dtaylor@emc.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
	       "gdb@sourceware.org" <gdb@sourceware.org>,
	       "binutils@zalov.cz" <binutils@zalov.cz>
Subject: Re: stabs changes for 64 bit targets
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:38:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <15482.1368542282@usendtaylorx2l> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130513145224.GY1377@tucnak.redhat.com>

Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:45:46AM -0400, David Taylor wrote:
> > There are problems when using current STABS debug format for 64 bit
> > targets.
> 
> Why are you considering extending STABS at this point?
> STABS support might very well be dropped altogether from GCC 4.9 or the next
> release, people just should use DWARF[234] everywhere.

There are multiple reasons.  One of the big reasons is...

Prior to GCC 4.7, DWARF is too verbose compared to STABS.

In STABS, all strings go into the string table; identical strings get
put into the table just once.

In DWARF, prior to GCC 4.7, macro strings do not go into the string
table.  If 1000 files all include a given header file, each #define in
that header gets its own string in the debug information -- so the
string is present 1000 times.  GCC 4.7 (DWARF4) fixes this.

We have STABS extensions (posted years ago, but never merged) that
record macros in the STABS debug information -- at the -g3 level, just
like for DWARF.

[Posting updated MACRO extensions and trying to get them merged in is on
my plate as part of the internal upgrade from gdb 7.1 to gdb 7.6.  The
extensions predate 7.1.]

We are currently using GCC 4.5.4 for most things; 4.6.x for others.  I
don't knbow the details, but 4.7 was (is?) considered unacceptable, so
we're planning on skipping it and waiting for 4.8.1 or later.

There are other reasons besides the DWARF verboseness, but they are
solvable.  The verboseness (over 10x increase in the size of the elf
file) is a show stopper.  So, for now, we're sticking with STABS.

I would like the 16 bytes STABS to be done in a manner that they would
be considered for inclusion.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-05-14 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <18975.1368456346@usendtaylorx2l>
2013-05-13 14:52 ` Jakub Jelinek
2013-05-13 16:15   ` Joern Rennecke
2013-05-14 14:38   ` David Taylor [this message]
2013-05-14 15:24     ` David Edelsohn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=15482.1368542282@usendtaylorx2l \
    --to=dtaylor@emc.com \
    --cc=binutils@zalov.cz \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox