search for: d74169

...es garbage collection, a lot of abandoned debug info is left behind. Besides inflated debug info size, we ended up with overlapping address ranges and no way to say valid vs garbage ranges(D59553). To resolve these two problems, we use implementation extracted from dsymutil https://reviews.llvm.org/D74169. It adds --gc-debuginfo command line option to the linker to remove obsolete debug info. Currently, it has the following limitations: does not support DWARF5, modules, -fdebug-types-section, type units, .debug_types, multiple .debug_info sections, split DWARF, thin lto. Following are size/performa...

...which does not support all features yet(f.e. split dwarf). - tolerant of the link-time increase. - need a useful way to share debug builds. For the first point: we have a problem "Overlapping address ranges starting from 0"(D59553). We use custom solution, but the general solution like D74169 would be better here. For the second point: split dwarf could be a good alternative to have debug info with minimal size. Still, it has drawbacks (not supported by tools currently, does not solve the "Overlapping address ranges" problem, not very convenient to share(even using .dwp)). T...

...dresses being used - but if you only want/need the CU-level ranges to be correct, this > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? >> 2) Optimize the DWARF size. > Do your users care much about this? I imagine if they had significant DWARF size issues, > they'd have significant link time issues and the kind of cost...

...level ranges > to be correct, this > > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of > invalid debug info > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for > D74169 then we > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution > in upstream? > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm not sure it > would save enough space to b...

...t; > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > >> > > >> > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of > >> invalid debug info > >> > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for > >> D74169 then we > >> > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution > >> in upstream? > >> > >> A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > >> again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm...

...are our far goals. > Indeed, the best solution would be to create valid optimized debug > info without additional > stages and additional modifications of resulting binaries. > > There was an attempt to use DWARFLinker from the lld - > https://reviews.llvm.org/D74169 > It did not receive enough support to be integrated yet. There are > fair reasons for that: > > 1. Execution time. The time required by DWARFLinker for processing > clang binary is 8x bigger > than the usual linking time. Linking clang binary with DWARFLinker...

...- but if you only want/need the CU-level ranges to be correct, this > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm not sure it would save enough space to be particularly valuable beyon...

...files. The three goals which you`ve described are our far goals. Indeed, the best solution would be to create valid optimized debug info without additional stages and additional modifications of resulting binaries. There was an attempt to use DWARFLinker from the lld - https://reviews.llvm.org/D74169 It did not receive enough support to be integrated yet. There are fair reasons for that: 1. Execution time. The time required by DWARFLinker for processing clang binary is 8x bigger than the usual linking time. Linking clang binary with DWARFLinker takes 72 sec, linking with the only lld takes...

...nt/need the CU-level ranges to be correct, this > > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm not sure it > would save enough space to be par...

...nt/need the CU-level ranges to be correct, this > > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm not sure it > would save enough space to be par...

...ranges to be correct, this > > > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > > > > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info > > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we > > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? > > > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > > again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm not sure it > > would sa...

...t, this > > > > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > > > > > > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info > > > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we > > > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? > > > > > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > > > again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm not sure i...

...t; > > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info > > > > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we > > > > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? > > > > > > > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > > > > again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed...

...> > > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. >> > > > >> > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info >> > > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we >> > > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? >> > > >> > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - >> > > again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I&...

...ix, and quite efficient. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our > problem of invalid debug info > > >> > > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good > results for D74169 then we > > >> > > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this > solution in upstream? > > >> > > > > >> > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream > - > > >> > > ag...

...t; might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info > > > > > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we > > > > > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? > > > > > > > > > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > > > > > again, cost/benefit/etc woul...

...t; > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. > > > > > > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem > > of invalid debug info > > > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results > > for D74169 then we > > > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this > > solution in upstream? > > > > > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > > > again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm...

...t;>>>>>> might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. >>>>>>>> Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info >>>>>>>> and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we >>>>>>>> will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? >>>>>>> A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - >>>>>>> again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be w...

...t;>> might be a viable fix, and quite efficient. >>>>>>>>>> Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid debug info >>>>>>>>>> and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169 then we >>>>>>>>>> will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in upstream? >>>>>>>>> A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - >>>>>>>>> again, cost/benefi...

...; > > > > > > > > > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our > > problem > > > > of invalid debug info > > > > > > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good > > results > > > > for D74169 then we > > > > > > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this > > > > solution in upstream? > > > > > > > > > > A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream - > > > > > again, c...