From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin) To: Christopher Faylor Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: stabs vs. dwarf-2 for C programs Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:31:00 -0000 Message-id: <5mg0fdzg2t.fsf@jtc.redback.com> References: <5mwv8pzgvt.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <20010412221742.A22383@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00092.html >>>>> "cgf" == Christopher Faylor writes: >> In general, are there any advantages for using dwarf-2 over >> stabs debugging symbols for C (not C++) programs? >> >> 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. cgf> Daniel Berlin contributed some duplicate debug elimination code cgf> to gcc for Dwarf-2. It should be in the gcc 3.0 branch, if you cgf> are adventurous. Thanks, I'll check that out. Assuming that Dan's changes make that a non-issue, are there any other reasons one might prefer dwarf-2 over stabs for C programs? --jtc -- J.T. Conklin RedBack Networks