* H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 05/22/17 04:12, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> \>>
> >> This construct might be useful for other arches, which is why I called
> >> it "FP" instead of "BP". But then I ruined that with the last 3 :-)
> >
> > Please call it BP - 'FP' can easily be read as floating-point, making it
> > all
> > super-confusing. We should use canonical x86 register names and ordering -
> > even
> > if not all registers are used straight away.
> >
>
> Seriously, I suspect that at the end of the day we will have reinvented
> DWARF.
Absolutely - the main difference is:
- the debug-info implementation is _internal_ to the kernel so it can be fixed
instead of "oh, wait 2 years for the toolchain to fix this particular bug,
work
it around in the kernel meanwhile" kind of crazy flow and dependencies. I.e.
the debug-info generation and parsing code is both part of the kernel Git
tree
and can be iterated (and fixed) at once with.
- the debug-info is auto-generated for assembly as well, leaving assembly code
maintainable.
- the debug-info has a sane data structure designed for robustness and
compactness
So even if it's a subset of the existing complexity of dwarf et al we are still
literally infinitely better off with this model.
Thanks,
Ingo
