From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22240 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2008 13:39:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 22193 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2008 13:39:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:38:38 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0F910D24; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:38:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C231019C; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:38:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KkIxP-0002dD-Di; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:38:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:39:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: 29 bits for dwarf2_per_cu_data.length ? Message-ID: <20080929133835.GA9818@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20080928204518.2FD9E1C78DF@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080928204518.2FD9E1C78DF@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-09/txt/msg00138.txt.bz2 On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 01:45:18PM -0700, Doug Evans wrote: > That shrinks the maximum size of a CU from 1G to 512M. > I'm guessing it's a non-starter (although 512M for one CU is still a lot), > but before I try something else I thought I'd check. I think 29 bits is still fine. A 512MB CU is going to produce probably upwards of 2GB in internalized debugging information. The first time someone comes up to us with a file that big, we'll want to accomodate it; but for now, I'd be surprised to see it. 512MB .debug_info, sure - that is easily within the reach of modern applications. > OTOH, on 64 bit targets there is 32 bits of alignment padding > in dwarf2_per_cu_data. DIE's are a lot smaller these days, and there > are a whole lot more of them than CUs. > Can I spend a teensy bit of that gain and make dwarf2_per_cu_data 32 bits > bigger for 32-bit targets? That'd be fine with me too. > A related question: dwarf2_per_cu_data.offset is 64 bits on 64-bit > targets (unsigned long) and yet most other places only use 32 bits > (unsigned int). E.g., partial_die_info.offset. > Can I change everything to use an unsigned it? Yes - though maybe a typedef? dwarf_off_t? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery