On 9/30/20 2:56 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:00:52 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 16:29 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DebugInfoLldbIndex
Currently the change will affect only packages using:
%global toolchain c
On 9/30/20 2:33 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:11:34 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
Why don't you add an lldb-add-index tool to generate LLVM indexes for
LLDB?
Because doing it separately like GDB does is a wrong thing for
edit-compile-debug cycle. When clang (lld for LTO) has all
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:06:44AM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > That is why the index should be added by linkers or post-link tools.
>
> This is how slow GNU Toolchain does that. LLVM has learned from those
> mistakes.
Can you please stop this? If you think everything LLVM does is great and
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 10:44:06 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:33:59AM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > Because doing it separately like GDB does is a wrong thing for
> > edit-compile-debug cycle. When clang (lld for LTO) has all the data incl. IR
> > already in memory it can
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:00:52 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 16:29 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DebugInfoLldbIndex
> > Currently the change will affect only packages using:
> > %global toolchain clang
> > Those are currently only
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:33:59AM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:11:34 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Why don't you add an lldb-add-index tool to generate LLVM indexes for
> > LLDB?
>
> Because doing it separately like GDB does is a wrong thing for
> edit-compile-debug cycle.
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 10:14:55 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> it would be great if the
> .debug_names some tool generates (whether it is GDB, some standalone
> post-linking (and post dwz) tool, dwz itself, ...) is usable by both GDB and
> LLDB, because the point in DWARF5 standardizing .debug_names wa
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:11:34 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Why don't you add an lldb-add-index tool to generate LLVM indexes for
> LLDB?
Because doing it separately like GDB does is a wrong thing for
edit-compile-debug cycle. When clang (lld for LTO) has all the data incl. IR
already in memory it can
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:55:53AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Why don't you add an lldb-add-index tool to generate LLVM indexes for
> > LLDB? Then we just invoke it as part of the buildroot policy setup and
> > get both GDB and LLDB indexes? This proposal seems to be particularly
> > destruct
* Neal Gompa:
> Why don't you add an lldb-add-index tool to generate LLVM indexes for
> LLDB? Then we just invoke it as part of the buildroot policy setup and
> get both GDB and LLDB indexes? This proposal seems to be particularly
> destructive to GDB users to favor LLDB.
You can use:
set inde
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 4:29 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DebugInfoLldbIndex
>
> == Summary ==
> Provide .debug_names debug info index for LLDB for clang-built
> binaries using: clang -gdwarf-5 -gpubnames
>
> Debuginfo index significantly accelerates loading of *
On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 16:29 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DebugInfoLldbIndex
>
[snip]
>
> It would be good to produce index from GCC by GDB and to produce
> index
> from clang by clang as the compatibility inside the same toolchain is
> best tested and supporte
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DebugInfoLldbIndex
== Summary ==
Provide .debug_names debug info index for LLDB for clang-built
binaries using: clang -gdwarf-5 -gpubnames
Debuginfo index significantly accelerates loading of *.debug files by
debugger. Fedora currently provides ELF section .
13 matches
Mail list logo
