[llvm-dev] [DWARF5][SplitDwarf] question on using fsplit-dwarf-inlining option

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

Yep, I wasn't aware of that particular wording, but that would make this
feature a non-conforming extension. Perhaps it should be off by default -
but it's still super useful to have around/I wouldn't be OK with removing
it.

In the future something like
http://wiki.dwarfstd.org/index.php?title=TwoLevelLineTables might be able
to replace this functionality & at a lower cost in object/executable size,
but I'm not sure what state that is in and whether it does cover all the
use cases.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:46 AM Alexey Lapshin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi DebugInfo folks,
>
> I have a question on using fsplit-dwarf-inlining option:
>
> "-fsplit-dwarf-inlining, -fno-split-dwarf-inlining
>
> Provide minimal debug info in the object/executable to facilitate online
> symbolication/stack traces in the absence of .dwo/.dwp files when using
> Split DWARF"
>
> i.e. it puts some debug info into compilation unit from First
> partition(with Skeleton unit).
>
> At the same time, there is following requirement for split DWARF :
>
> "When generating a split DWARF object file (see Section 7.3.2 on page
> 187), the compilation unit in the .debug_info section is a "skeleton"
> compilation unit with the tag DW_TAG_skeleton_unit
>
> A skeleton compilation unit has no children."
>
> Is the behavior of fsplit-dwarf-inlining option correct, then?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191206/27ba9b4d/attachment.html>