similar to: [DebugInfo][DWARFv5] should -gdwarf-5 imply usage of .debug_names?

Hi,   We propose llvm-dwarfutil - a dsymutil-like tool for ELF.   Any thoughts on this?   Thanks in advance, Alexey. ====================================================================== llvm-dwarfutil(Apndx A) - is a tool that is used for processing debug info(DWARF) located in built binary files to improve debug info quality, reduce debug info size and accelerate debug info processing.

On 26.08.2020 10:58, James Henderson wrote: > In principle, this sounds reasonable to me. I don't know enough about > dsymutil's interface to know whether it makes sense to try to make it > multi-format compatible or not. If it doesn't I'm perfectly happy for > a new tool to be added using the DWARFLinker library. > > Some more general thoughts: > 1)

On 01.09.2020 06:27, David Blaikie wrote: > A quick note: The feature as currently proposed sounds like it's an > exact match for 'dwz'? Is there any benefit to this over the existing > dwz project? Is it different in some ways I'm not aware of? (I haven't > actually used dwz, so I might have some mistaken ideas about how it > should work) > > If

On 01.09.2020 20:07, David Blaikie wrote: > Fair enough - thanks for clarifying the differences! (I'd still lean a > bit towards this being dwz-esque, as you say "an extension of classic dwz" I doubt a little about "llvm-dwz" since it might confuse people who would expect exactly the same behavior. But if we think of it as "an extension of classic dwz" and

On 02.09.2020 21:44, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:56 AM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com > <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 01.09.2020 20:07, David Blaikie wrote: >> Fair enough - thanks for clarifying the differences! (I'd still >> lean a bit towards this being dwz-esque, as you say "an

> On Jun 14, 2018, at 7:01 AM, Pavel Labath via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Thank you all. I am going to try to reply to all comments in a single email. > > Regarding the .apple_objc idea, I am afraid the situation is not as > simple as just flipping a switch. Jonas is currently working on adding the support for DWARF5-style Objective-C accelerator

Hello again, It's been nearly six months since my first email, so it's a good time to recap what has been done here so far. I am happy to report that stages 1-3 (i.e. producer/consumer in llvm and integration with lldb) of my original plan are now complete with one caveat. The caveat is that the .debug_names section is presently not a full drop-in replacement for the .apple_*** sections.

> On Jun 13, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Pavel, > >> On Jun 13, 2018, at 6:56 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com <mailto:labath at google.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello again, >> >> It's been nearly six months since my first email, so it's a good time >> to

On 03.09.2020 01:36, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:26 PM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com > <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 02.09.2020 21:44, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:56 AM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com >> <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>>

Another example would be .debug_pubnames and .debug_pubtypes sections. Currently these default to omitted for Darwin and PS4, but included everywhere else. My initial patch for "tuning" changes the PS4 platform criterion to the SCE debugger predicate; quite likely the "not Darwin" criterion ought to be "not LLDB" or in other words "on for GDB only."

Hi James, Thank you for the comments. >I think we're not terribly far from that ideal, now, for ELF. Maybe only these three things need to be done? -- >  1. Teach lld how to emit a separated debuginfo output file directly, without requiring an objcopy step. >  2. Integrate DWARFLinker into lld. >  3. Create a new tool which takes the separated debuginfo and DWO/DWP files

This is basically a reboot of the previous thread titled About the "debugger target" except that "target" was really too strong a term for what I had intended to use this feature for. "Debugger tuning" is more like it. You don't need to have read the previous thread, I'll recap here. Fundamentally, Clang/LLVM uses DWARF as the specification for the

> A few more things that vote for debugger tuning: > > - LLDB doesn't like to have DWARF that has a class A that inherits from > class B, but only a forward declaration of class B is provided. Hmm do we emit that kind of thing today? In a naïve test, I'm seeing the full description of class B. > - LLDB wants the .apple_XXX accelerator tables, GDB wants >

Comments on the patch raise the following questions, probably better discussed here. First: Should LLVM default to "no tuning" rather than a target-specific default? There are two natural follow-up questions: What would "no tuning" actually mean? Where would the target-specific defaulting occur? I originally came down against the "no tuning" option, in favor of the

> On May 1, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On May 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: >> >>> A few more things that vote for debugger tuning: >>> >>> - LLDB doesn't like to have DWARF that has a class A that inherits from >>> class B, but

> On May 5, 2015, at 8:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com <mailto:aprantl at apple.com>> wrote: > > > On May 1, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com <mailto:gclayton at apple.com>> wrote: > > > > > >> On May 1,

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:13:36 +0100, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev wrote: > so I'm writing this email to see if there's anyone > else interested in this topic, and to try to synchronize our efforts. I am sure interested in DWARF-5 .debug_names. I wrote its producer+consumer for GDB (but not producing/using DW_IDX_DIE_offset as GDB cannot use it). > 1. add .debug_names support to

I don’t think there was a driver patch so far, was there? -- adrian > On May 6, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > Does the patch do all of this? > > -eric > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:18 PM Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com <mailto:Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com>> wrote: > I just skimmed

I just skimmed through the thread again, and I *think* all the main questions have been answered… It feels like the consensus is "reluctant agreement," with the specific design points being: - a "debugger tuning" option would have some sort of target-based default - the "debugger tuning" option would unpack into defaults for individual feature flags -

Hello all, In <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41986#977215> it was brought up that there are at least two parties interested in having DWARF5 accelerator tables implemented, so I'm writing this email to see if there's anyone else interested in this topic, and to try to synchronize our efforts. Our interest for this stems from a desire to make dwarf parsing fast on non-apple targets