On 4/21/23 12:56, Todd Allen via Dwarf-discuss wrote:
I've been playing catch-up on this discussion today. I was convinced of the
value early on just based on the need of this information to follow the ABI
parameter passing rules on certain architectures.
Really -- that is what I care about to
On 4/21/23 16:36, David Blaikie wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:44 PM John DelSignore
mailto:jdelsign...@perforce.com>> wrote:
Well, it took a long time to compile 5 CUs that contained your test code, and
things were looking promising, but the link failed:
rocm2 42 04/21 15:14 /build/jdelsig
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:44 PM John DelSignore
wrote:
> Well, it took a long time to compile 5 CUs that contained your test code,
> and things were looking promising, but the link failed:
>
> rocm2 42 04/21 15:14 /build/jdelsign/fatty % make
> g++ -g -c fatty4.cxx -o fatty4.o
> g++ -g -c fatty5
I've been playing catch-up on this discussion today. I was convinced of the
value early on just based on the need of this information to follow the ABI
parameter passing rules on certain architectures. And I was with you right
up until this V3 version. Comments below:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11
Well, it took a long time to compile 5 CUs that contained your test code, and
things were looking promising, but the link failed:
rocm2 42 04/21 15:14 /build/jdelsign/fatty % make
g++ -g -c fatty4.cxx -o fatty4.o
g++ -g -c fatty5.cxx -o fatty5.o
g++ -g -o fatty fatty.o fatty2.o fatty3.o fatty4.o
Thanks David, this is useful. I'll see what I can cobble together.
Cheers, John D.
On 4/20/23 21:58, David Blaikie wrote:
Oh, and I guess you could always make something even more artificial by hand -
if you compile some random code with -g to assembly, you could then just pad
out a .debug_info
