search for: sort_by_magic_debug

Looks like there is an agreement that this path, modifying lld to order sections using relocations, should be explored. If Igor doesn't object, since he was primary one driving DWARF64 so far, I would like to give it a shot at implementing and collecting some performance numbers. 🙂 Alex ________________________________ From: James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> Sent:

...inconsistency to the system: > > For an output section description .debug_info 0 : { *(.debug_info) } , should the linker sort DWARF32 and DWARF64 components? It it does, the behavior will be inconsistent with other input section descriptions *(foo) > > If there is a magic keyword, say, SORT_BY_MAGIC_DEBUG, and the internal > linker script does something similar to > > *(SORT_BY_MAGIC_DEBUG(.debug_info)) > > then the system is still consistent. I also started a thread on binutils side yesterday (sent in haste) https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-November/114099.html (We s...

...ior does add some inconsistency to the system: For an output section description .debug_info 0 : { *(.debug_info) } , should the linker sort DWARF32 and DWARF64 components? It it does, the behavior will be inconsistent with other input section descriptions *(foo) If there is a magic keyword, say, SORT_BY_MAGIC_DEBUG, and the internal linker script does something similar to *(SORT_BY_MAGIC_DEBUG(.debug_info)) then the system is still consistent. >> >> Though, as Eric said - some of this conversation might be better had >> in terms of concrete patches with concrete performance measurement...

...ior does add some inconsistency to the system: For an output section description .debug_info 0 : { *(.debug_info) } , should the linker sort DWARF32 and DWARF64 components? It it does, the behavior will be inconsistent with other input section descriptions *(foo) If there is a magic keyword, say, SORT_BY_MAGIC_DEBUG, and the internal linker script does something similar to *(SORT_BY_MAGIC_DEBUG(.debug_info)) then the system is still consistent. >> >> Though, as Eric said - some of this conversation might be better had >> in terms of concrete patches with concrete performance measurement...

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:55 AM James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 05:41, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +James for context too (always good to include the folks from the >> original threads for continuity) >> >> Yeah, my general attitude there was just twofold, one that