Tom - any chance you've had/could take a brief look at this issue?
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:12 PM wrote:
> Tom Russell could perhaps speak to this better, but my understanding is
> that our debugger guys like having .debug_aranges, because parsing the CU
> DIE does take that extra effort. I am
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 2:24 PM Samy Al Bahra wrote:
> Hi David
>
> I implemented some optimizations in the form of a specialized parser for
> fast AT_ranges scanning and performance is now comparable to lazy
> evaluation through .debug_aranges (only marginally worse assuming buffer
> cache warme
Hi David
I implemented some optimizations in the form of a specialized parser for
fast AT_ranges scanning and performance is now comparable to lazy
evaluation through .debug_aranges (only marginally worse assuming buffer
cache warmed up). We've since shipped with these optimizations. I have to
do
Hey Samy - curious if you ever happened to end up getting further details
here.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:05 PM Samy Al Bahra wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed response David.
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:52 PM David Blaikie wrote:
>
>> I'm not suggesting scanning all of .debug_info - only the CU
