On 3/3/21 10:32 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 5:16 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org > <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > On 2/3/21 7:01 am, Alex White wrote: > > There were a couple of issues with the way the DWARF info was being > > read. The first issue was that it inefficiently included all symbols, > > even symbols that were not desired. The second issue is that it did > > not handle inline functions correctly. These have been fixed. > > --- > > rtemstoolkit/rld-dwarf.cpp | 8 ++- > > rtemstoolkit/rld-dwarf.h | 5 ++ > > The RLD dwarf changes are fine. Should this be a separate patch to the > covoar > changes? > > > That's what Gedare asked for when he suggested splitting the set into areas.
I see this now. I was working through the patches. > Alex can you separate out the RLD? > > If Chris was ok with them all, just repost them as a self-contained set and > he can ack the cover-letter for the RLD set. Thank you, this would be a help. The changes are looking good, just minor things from my point of view. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
