https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29075
--- Comment #2 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
It does load the debuginfo files, but not the sources (objdump -S).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29075
--- Comment #8 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
(maybe nickc's confusion was in thinking that the debuginfo download would
include sources, as if they were colocated in an rpm, but it doesn't!)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29075
--- Comment #14 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
Could objdump preemptively call some debuginfod-calling function - any one - in
order to prefetch debuginfo for options like -S?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29075
--- Comment #16 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
Sorry about the confusion, it was mine.
Yeah, libbfd.so's dependencies are small, adding debuginfod (=> libcurl) would
make it rather larger. OTOH elfutils-libs are on systems already, so the
depende
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29517
--- Comment #3 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
(lgtm on paper!)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: fche at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
A modern firefox build includes construction of a 3.9GB libxul.so (including
debuginfo) on x86-64. On a f37 toolchain, readelf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29993
--- Comment #5 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
I have not previously looked into the annotation notes in great detail, so am
working from a tyro understanding of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Toolchain/Watermark . Please excuse my naivite
with th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29993
--- Comment #9 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
> Yes - I am afraid that the watermark protocol document is a bit out of date,
> and its rules for note merging do need to be updated.
I'd suggest not over-specifying merging, or specifying merging per
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26301
Frank Ch. Eigler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fche at redhat dot com
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: fche at redhat dot com
CC: amerey at redhat dot com, woodard at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The debuginfod client code in objdump is appropriately
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26595
--- Comment #2 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
confirmed working with objdump, thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||fche at redhat dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10238
--- You are receiving this
--- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2009-10-12 16:10
---
IMO, ld's automagic searching is a good thing. Asking a program to enumerate
all the indirect dependencies of shared libraries is a burden that they may not
be equipped to carry. How do you envision th
--- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2009-10-12 23:53
---
I'm confused about whether gold's lack of DT_NEEDED resolution is
intended to affect only pure-indirect or merely mixed-direct-indirect
dependencies. Specifically:
liba { int a() { return b(); } }
li
14 matches
Mail list logo
