Thanks for the thoughts! > AIUI, -gsplit-dwarf is more suitable for development/scratch builds > than for distro binaries. If distros agree, then I would not expect > .dwo files to show up in distro-wide debuginfod services, but rather > within developers' own build trees.
That's a good point. My concerns are only valid if distros decide to start building packages using -gsplit-dwarf and dwp to package up the .dwo files into one .dwp file. I also agree that split dwarfs (split dwarves?) are more suitable for local builds than for distro builds. The one advantage I can think of that split dwarfs offer distro binaries is a faster build for larger packages (since dwp does not do all the relocations the linker would normally do). But I don't know enough about building packages to say what will happen in the future. > The hypothetical problem is collision between dwo/dwp files, not > between dwo/dwp and normal buildid dwarf files, right? That's correct. > In that case, are you talking about two levels of indexing (buildid > of final linked binary + dwo_id)? I was suggesting one level of indexing. The buildid of the final linked binary would be used to reference the dwp file directly. This solution would not work for individual dwo files. For individual dwo files we could still use the dwo_id as they should only be for local builds. -Matt
