On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:06:10AM -0700, David Blaikie via Binutils wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> wrote: > > where I > > would argue the compiler simply needs to make sure that if it generates > > code in separate sections it also should create the DWARF separate > > section (groups). > > I don't think that's practical - the overhead, I believe, is too high. > Headers for each section contribution (ELF headers but DWARF headers > moreso - having a separate .debug_addr, .debug_line, etc section for > each function would be very expensive) would make for very large > object files.
With a little linker magic I don't see the neccesity of duplicating the DWARF headers. Taking .debug_line as an example, a compiler could emit the header, opcode, directory and file tables to a .debug_line section with line statements for function foo emitted to .debug_line.foo and for bar to .debug_line.bar, trusting that the linker will combine these sections in order to create an output .debug_line section. If foo code is excluded then .debug_line.foo info will also be dropped if section groups are used. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
