On Oct 17, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Tristan" == Tristan Gingold writes:
>
> Tom> Another way to look at it is that there have been many changes to GCC's
> Tom> DWARF output in the last few years. Surely these have broken these
> Tom> DWARF consumers more than this change pos
> "Tristan" == Tristan Gingold writes:
Tom> Another way to look at it is that there have been many changes to GCC's
Tom> DWARF output in the last few years. Surely these have broken these
Tom> DWARF consumers more than this change possibly could.
Tristan> Yes, but there is -gstrict-dwarf to
On Oct 14, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Tristan" == Tristan Gingold writes:
>
> Tristan> I am not against this patch, my only concern is that there are many
> Tristan> many dwarf consumers and I have no idea how they will react to this
> Tristan> change.
>
> I tend to think that
> "Tristan" == Tristan Gingold writes:
Tristan> I am not against this patch, my only concern is that there are many
Tristan> many dwarf consumers and I have no idea how they will react to this
Tristan> change.
I tend to think that this is the wrong standard to apply. In this case
we would b
On Oct 13, 2011, at 10:40 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:18:07 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:07:24 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> I fear that this may degrade performance of other debuggers. What about
>>> adding a command line option ?
>>
>> I ca
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:18:07 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:07:24 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > I fear that this may degrade performance of other debuggers. What about
> > adding a command line option ?
>
> I can test idb,
I do not find the difference measurable. Drop
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:07:24 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> I fear that this may degrade performance of other debuggers. What about
> adding a command line option ?
I can test idb, there aren't so many DWARF debuggers out there I think.
If the default is removed DW_AT_sibling a new options may
On Oct 12, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Hi,
>
> dropping the optional DWARF attribute DW_AT_sibling has only advantages and no
> disadvantages:
>
> For files with .gdb_index GDB initial scan does not use DW_AT_sibling at all.
> For files without .gdb_index GDB initial scan has 1.79
Hi,
dropping the optional DWARF attribute DW_AT_sibling has only advantages and no
disadvantages:
For files with .gdb_index GDB initial scan does not use DW_AT_sibling at all.
For files without .gdb_index GDB initial scan has 1.79% time _improvement_.
For .debug files it brings 3.49% size decreas
