Coming back to this part of the thread...
On Thu., 27 Jul. 2017, 11:54 am Robinson, Paul
wrote:
>
> |
> > I don't really know just how much LLDB cares about fixed-size forms/DIEs,
> > but rumor has it it's important to some degree, so I continue to have a
> > slight prefere
>>> I don't really know just how much LLDB cares about fixed-size forms/DIEs,
>>> but rumor has it it's important to some degree, so I continue to have a
>>> slight preference towards fixed size representations (or at least having
>>> the option to do so, even if there are variable length forms too
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:54 AM Robinson, Paul
wrote:
>
> |
> > I don't really know just how much LLDB cares about fixed-size forms/DIEs,
> > but rumor has it it's important to some degree, so I continue to have a
> > slight preference towards fixed size representations (or
|
> I don't really know just how much LLDB cares about fixed-size forms/DIEs,
> but rumor has it it's important to some degree, so I continue to have a
> slight preference towards fixed size representat
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:27 PM Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> >> Well... why not just use ranges, in that case? .debug_rnglists is
> >> already tuned to reduce relocations. A range list with only one
> >> entry is the same as a contiguous range, and DW_RLE_offset_pair is
> >> basically the same as us
>> Well... why not just use ranges, in that case? .debug_rnglists is
>> already tuned to reduce relocations. A range list with only one
>> entry is the same as a contiguous range, and DW_RLE_offset_pair is
>> basically the same as using constant low_pc and high_pc.
>
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:56 PM Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> >> This discussion is about reducing the number of .debug_addr entries you
> >> need, so the place to look would be the "class address" attributes.
> >> There aren't all that many of them, and the one most likely to benefit
> >> would be DW
>> This discussion is about reducing the number of .debug_addr entries you
>> need, so the place to look would be the "class address" attributes.
>> There aren't all that many of them, and the one most likely to benefit
>> would be DW_AT_low_pc.
>>
>> We made it okay to have DW_AT_high_pc be a cons
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:00 PM Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> > From: Dwarf-Discuss [mailto:dwarf-discuss-boun...@lists.dwarfstd.org]
> On Behalf Of David Blaikie
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:04 AM
> > To: Doug Evans; dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
> > Subject:
> From: Dwarf-Discuss [mailto:dwarf-discuss-boun...@lists.dwarfstd.org] On
> Behalf Of David Blaikie
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:04 AM
> To: Doug Evans; dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
> Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] address pool + offset representation
>
>
> On We
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:51 AM Doug Evans wrote:
> How about a new form that specifies two things: index in .debug_addr +
> offset, where index and offset are any current constant representation
> (fixed size or leb) ?
>
Roughly what I had in mind - but wasn't sure how to encode that.
Would t
Ping
This'd be a great file size saving, especially in optimized builds - and
probably link time optimization by having /many/ fewer relocations.
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:25 PM David Blaikie wrote:
> Ping - any ideas?
>
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:17 PM David Blaikie wrote:
>
>> A big part
Ping - any ideas?
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:17 PM David Blaikie wrote:
> A big part of Fission debug info in object files an optimized build, are
> unique address relocation in debug_addr and debug_ranges. I have an example
> binary where for N bytes of .text, there are ~2N bytes of .rela.debug_
A big part of Fission debug info in object files an optimized build, are
unique address relocation in debug_addr and debug_ranges. I have an example
binary where for N bytes of .text, there are ~2N bytes of .rela.debug_addr
and >2N bytes of .rela.debug_ranges.
Given that .rela.debug_line is about
14 matches
Mail list logo
