Hi. Thanks for your reply. The links to bugs you included add much needed detail to this discussion.
>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <d...@debian.org> writes: Matthias> as pre-processing. So we know since about three years Matthias> that dwz doesn't support compressed debug symbols. Your Matthias> language about "claims", "might", and so on is not Matthias> appropriate. No, we know that three years ago dwz didn't support compressed debug symbols. Since that information is three years out of date, you get my "might" and "claim" language. You're the binutils maintainer! If you happen to know that dwz still doesn't support compressed symbols then *say that* and all my language about "might" and "claim" will go away. I absolutely trust your knowledge about what our elf stack does. It's possible it's a language issue, but so far you've used rather vague language rather than making specific claims in an area where you are an expert. If you don't know, that's fine. But if no one who would like to see us move away from compressed debug symbols has chosen to check and see whether dwz still requires uncompressed symbols, well, I think that is significant. I think the primary burden of arguing for a change lies with those proposing that change. So, I do think that people proposing a change need to do things like find out what specific tools break. (Including pointers to bugs as you have done in the last mail also counts as providing that sort of justification. I'll admit that I don't see how the pointer to the rpm find-debuginfo script quite fits in, but I think I follow the valgrind issue.)