On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:58:51 +0200, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:41, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratoch...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:50:39 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > = What I am NOT working on
> > [...]
> > > - Any other tool, project not mentioned above or other
> > > native toolchains like golang, rust, clang/llvm or ocaml.
> > > I expect those to simply keep producing DWARF4.
> >
> > So because of a DWZ deficiency you want to keep DWARF-5 in clang disabled.
> > Despite clang supports DWARF-5 better and for a longer time than GCC.
>
> I did not take it to mean that. I took it to mean that he isn't going to
> tell other groups what to work on which a change request seems to have
> become. He instead expects them to keep doing what they are doing if they
> want versus getting forced to do what he is working on.
Currently on files built by clang -gdwarf-5 DWZ will fail:
dwz: ./usr/lib64/libmatrix_client.so.0.3.1-0.3.1-2.fc34.x86_64.debug:
Unknown debugging section .debug_addr
Which is fine as the file just does not get optimized. But that results in rpm
size bigger for clang-built binaries by 31.23% as -fdebug-types-section is not
used. If -fdebug-types-section was used for clang-built binaries DWZ would
fail a similar way but the size increase would be "just" by 6.78%.
I do not find there much a difference, just stating.
(These percents are relative to total *-debuginfo.rpm size, not to total
distribution size.)
Jan
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
