Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:38:02 -0400, David Taylor wrote:
> > There are other reasons besides the DWARF verboseness, but they are
> > solvable. The verboseness (over 10x increase in the size of the elf
> > file) is a show stopper.
>
> People keep saying that here from tim
On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:38:02 -0400, David Taylor wrote:
> There are other reasons besides the DWARF verboseness, but they are
> solvable. The verboseness (over 10x increase in the size of the elf
> file) is a show stopper.
People keep saying that here from time to time. You said it earlier
this y
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:38 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:45:46AM -0400, David Taylor wrote:
>> > There are problems when using current STABS debug format for 64 bit
>> > targets.
>>
>> Why are you considering extending STABS at this point?
>> ST
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:45:46AM -0400, David Taylor wrote:
> > There are problems when using current STABS debug format for 64 bit
> > targets.
>
> Why are you considering extending STABS at this point?
> STABS support might very well be dropped altogether from GCC 4.9
Quoting Jakub Jelinek :
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:45:46AM -0400, David Taylor wrote:
There are problems when using current STABS debug format for 64 bit
targets.
Why are you considering extending STABS at this point?
STABS support might very well be dropped altogether from GCC 4.9 or the nex
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:45:46AM -0400, David Taylor wrote:
> There are problems when using current STABS debug format for 64 bit
> targets.
Why are you considering extending STABS at this point?
STABS support might very well be dropped altogether from GCC 4.9 or the next
release, people just sh
