From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geoff Keating To: jtc@redback.com Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com, binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: stabs vs. dwarf-2 for C programs Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:00:00 -0000 Message-id: <200104130500.WAA02095@geoffk.org> References: <5mwv8pzgvt.fsf@jtc.redback.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00095.html > From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin) > Date: 12 Apr 2001 19:13:26 -0700 > In general, are there any advantages for using dwarf-2 over > stabs debugging symbols for C (not C++) programs? In general, dwarf-2 is much more expressive and can deal better with some of the more complex optimisations that gcc can do. (I don't know if this actually works yet.) > I did a quick test of rebuilding our system with dwarf-2 debug > symbols, and found that the image file grew from 35MB to 167MB > and link times nearly quadrupled, so dwarf-2 isn't looking so > good so far. If I had to guess, it looks like duplicate debug > info (from headers, etc.) isn't being eliminated as is done > for stabs. Yes, no-one has yet taught the linker how to eliminate all the duplicates. -- - Geoffrey Keating