From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29310 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2006 15:38:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 29302 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2006 15:38:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (HELO mexforward.lss.emc.com) (168.159.213.200) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:38:46 +0000 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (uraeus.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.14]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k3CFcCN1029781; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emc.com (usendtaylorx1l.lss.emc.com [10.243.42.21]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k3CFc9Mm005686; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:38:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200604121538.k3CFc9Mm005686@mailhub.lss.emc.com> To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: Jean-Rene Peulve , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: stabs vs dwarf (was: Re: Wrong address for static function in linux module ) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:40:02 EDT." <20060411144002.GA27443@nevyn.them.org> References: <6.1.0.6.0.20060411102654.00ad0710@pop.wanadoo.fr> <20060411131142.GA21521@nevyn.them.org> <6.1.0.6.0.20060411152707.00acc440@pop.wanadoo.fr> <20060411133836.GA22167@nevyn.them.org> <6.1.0.6.0.20060411163043.00a957f0@pop.wanadoo.fr> <20060411144002.GA27443@nevyn.them.org> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:36:00 -0000 From: David Taylor X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:40:02 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:31:32PM +0200, Jean-Rene Peulve wrote: > > > What do you recommend to use rather than stabs ? > > DWARF-2. DWARF might be better for some things, but compactness is not one of them. Until dwarf gets smaller or some other compelling reason arises, I suspect that many people will stay with STABS. DWARF is very voluminous by comparison to STABS. I recently did builds of our software 3 ways -- . stabs . dwarf-2 . dwarf-2 with dup elimination Ignoring the debug information, the executable files were identical (of course). And the ``dwarf-2 with dup elimination'' ones were typically 20-30 percent smaller than the dwarf-2 ones built without specifying -feliminate-dwarf2-dups. But, the sizes of the ``dwarf-2 with dup elimination'' executable files was 1.7 to 9.2 times the sizes of the corresponding stabs executable files. A full build tree (build products only, no sources) is 8.7 GB with STABS, but 24.6 GB when built with -gdwarf-2 -feliminate-dwarf2-dups. David -- David Taylor dtaylor@emc.com