On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:08:41PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Yes, it's deliberate. People rarely need them just because they're > > debugging something linked to libc.so.6. Having them slows down GDB > > startup and increases its memory usage, for _every_ debug session. > > Ok. Of course, this is also generally an argument against having -dbg > packages for libraries with separated symbols..
Yes. It's a tradeoff question. Pretty much any other library will affect a smaller overall percentage of users :-) > > You'll notice if you look closely that libc6-dbg contains two things. > > One of them is a set of libraries you can use if you want to debug > > libc6. The other is a set of separate symbol files, but they contain > > only frame unwind information, no symbolic or line number information. > > This keeps the size and performance impact of the package down, but > > makes backtraces out of libc6 hugely more reliable. > > What are your feelings on only including the -g1 information in library > -dbg packages in general? It does save a lot of space, but the potential > utility also goes way down. I don't remember exactly what -g1 produces, but I think libc6-dbg is even less - it's only .debug_frame and .symtab, nothing else at all. I think libc6-dbg is a special case here, and we should use -g (-g2) in general. Another possible way to change glibc would be to have libc6-dbg contain full debug symbols, libc6-dev contain -g1 symbols only, and have the -dbg divert the -dev. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
