On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > >> Then again, I also don't see what the big deal about adding a debug >> info parser is. > > OK, yes, we may need to read debug info back in. > > I don't see it as a big deal, either -- and I also don't see it as locking > us into DWARF2. We can presumably read in any formats we are about, so if > we want to add a stabs reader, we can do that to support stabs platforms. > And, until we have a stabs reader, we can just drop debug info on those > platforms when doing LTO. So, we just have to design LTO with some > abstraction over debug info in mind.
Yes, this is what i would suggest. I'll also note that GDB already contains such an abstraction, which was based on STABS, rather than DWARF. > > In fact, we could probably treat DWARF as canonical, and have a STABS->DWARF > input filter and DWARF->STABS output filter, if we like. Sure. Again, this input filter is basically what GDB does, converting DWARF -> internal debuginfo abstraction.
