[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

echristo added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1285328, @grimar wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1284130, @probinson wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1283691, @grimar wrote: > > > > > Nice :) > > > So seems the last unresolved question left is the naming

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1284130, @probinson wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1283691, @grimar wrote: > > > Nice :) > > So seems the last unresolved question left is the naming of the new option? > > If we do not want to go with

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

probinson added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1283691, @grimar wrote: > Nice :) > So seems the last unresolved question left is the naming of the new option? > If we do not want to go with `-gsingle-file-split-dwarf` then what it should > be? > > What about `-fdebug-fission`

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. Nice :) So seems the last unresolved question left is the naming of the new option? If we do not want to go with `-gsingle-file-split-dwarf` then what it should be? What about `-fdebug-fission` as an alias for `-gsplit-dwarf`. And `-fsingle-file-debug-fission` for the

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

dblaikie added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282603, @probinson wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282589, @dblaikie wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282587, @probinson wrote: > > > > > Any distributed build has to make this work, so the paths in the

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

probinson added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282589, @dblaikie wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282587, @probinson wrote: > > > Any distributed build has to make this work, so the paths in the line table > > are usable. Not clear what you're thinking might be the

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

dblaikie added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282587, @probinson wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282458, @dblaikie wrote: > > > I guess in that case your distributed build system would have a constraint > > that it always ships all the object files back to the

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

probinson added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282458, @dblaikie wrote: > I guess in that case your distributed build system would have a constraint > that it always ships all the object files back to the primary machine (where > you'd be running the debugger)? (perhaps it just

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

dblaikie added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282369, @grimar wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1281642, @echristo wrote: > > > Can you elaborate on your motivations and what you're trying to do? > > > > Thanks! > > > We want to see: > > - No extra files. The compiler

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1281642, @echristo wrote: > Can you elaborate on your motivations and what you're trying to do? > > Thanks! We want to see: - No extra files. The compiler produces just a .o. - The linker leaves most debug info in the .o files. That

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

echristo added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1246142, @grimar wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1243688, @echristo wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1241928, @probinson wrote: > > > > > Do we generate the .dwo file directly these days? If not, I can

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar updated this revision to Diff 171480. grimar added a comment. Ping. - Rebased. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296 Files: include/clang/Driver/CC1Options.td include/clang/Driver/Options.td include/clang/Frontend/CodeGenOptions.h lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

dblaikie added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1272220, @grimar wrote: > Maybe `-gno-dwo`? So we would write `-genable-split-dwarf -gno-dwo`? I'm not sure how everyone else feels about "-g" flags that modify debug behavior (like "-gsplit-dwarf") versus "-f" flags (eg:

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. Maybe `-gno-dwo`? So we would write `-genable-split-dwarf -gno-dwo`? https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

dblaikie added a comment. @echristo > As far as the standard text here, IMO it was just there in case people didn't > have an objcopy around or don't want to split it. I'm not sure why we would > want the ability. I think others have mentioned - but with distributed build it might be easier

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

alexshap added a comment. I talked to David @dblaikie offline about this diff yesterday, if I understood correctly this change is reasonable in general, @echristo Eric, would you mind having a look at this diff ? https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

alexshap added a comment. Ping https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

alexshap added a comment. I see, many thanks. I've cherry-picked this patch locally and played with GDB - it appears to work fine with it. I'm also interested and support this change since this would simplify the adoption of Fission by some build systems. @dblaikie, @echristo - are there any

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1258677, @alexshap wrote: > @grimar, this is an interesting observation which I've had on my mind for > quite some time as well; a couple of things which I have not double-checked > yet - just in case - do both gold and lld completely

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

alexshap added a comment. @grimar, this is an interesting observation which I've had on my mind for quite some time as well; a couple of things which I have not double-checked yet - just in case - do both gold and lld completely ignore dwo-related sections ? (did you check that ?), and another

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. Ping. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. Ping. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1243688, @echristo wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1241928, @probinson wrote: > > > Do we generate the .dwo file directly these days? If not, I can imagine > > wanting to avoid the overhead of the objcopy hack; as long as

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

echristo added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1241928, @probinson wrote: > Do we generate the .dwo file directly these days? If not, I can imagine > wanting to avoid the overhead of the objcopy hack; as long as the linker is > smart enough not to bother with the .debug_*.dwo

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

echristo added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1241928, @probinson wrote: > Do we generate the .dwo file directly these days? If not, I can imagine > wanting to avoid the overhead of the objcopy hack; as long as the linker is > smart enough not to bother with the .debug_*.dwo

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. To summarise: - It shares most of the benefits with the .dwo solution. - Unlike .dwo, there is no need to split the file and it is friendlier to other tools (ccache, distcc, etc) - But unlike .dwo a distributed build system has to copy larger .o files.

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar added a comment. We want to take the benefit that debug fission provides, but keep the debug information in the objects. That is a bit less intrusive way than using regular split dwarf flow. For a regular build and debug cycle that allows the linker to do minimal processing of the

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

probinson added a comment. Do we generate the .dwo file directly these days? If not, I can imagine wanting to avoid the overhead of the objcopy hack; as long as the linker is smart enough not to bother with the .debug_*.dwo sections this seems like a build-time win.

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

dblaikie added a comment. Do you/what's your particular use case for this scenario? I guess this looks a bit like Apple's format (where debug info stays in the object file and isn't linked into the final binary), but don't expect they'd be moving to this any time soon.

[PATCH] D52296: [Clang] - Add -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option.

grimar created this revision. grimar added reviewers: dblaikie, echristo, probinson, compnerd. Herald added subscribers: JDevlieghere, aprantl. The DWARF5 specification says(Appendix F.1): "The sections that do not require relocation, however, **can be written to the relocatable object (.o)