From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EgMoZ-0001wO-GP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:43:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jARDgorW022529; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:42:50 GMT Received: from skinny.southernlinux.net (ns2.rednecks.net [64.192.52.5]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jARDexJv022945 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:41:00 GMT Received: (qmail 21834 invoked by uid 210); 27 Nov 2005 08:34:06 -0500 Received: from 64.192.53.57 by skinny (envelope-from , uid 201) with qmail-scanner-1.25st (clamdscan: 0.82/1195. f-prot: 4.4.2/3.14.11. spamassassin: 3.0.2. perlscan: 1.25st. Clear:RC:1(64.192.53.57):. Processed in 0.063435 secs); 27 Nov 2005 13:34:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO montgomery-57.epproach.net) (64.192.53.57) by 0 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2005 08:34:06 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split ELF Debug (default or not?) From: Ned Ludd To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1133096987.26860.5.camel@home.yosifov.net> References: <1133027430.5317.307.camel@localhost> <1133094251.5422.356.camel@localhost> <1133096987.26860.5.camel@home.yosifov.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 08:40:29 -0500 Message-Id: <1133098829.5422.409.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ba72ec22-1180-4db9-8655-18e0c2040a9e X-Archives-Hash: bfba384b0a458dc7e79fe3acaf924aa7 On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:09 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote: > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:24 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:20 -0600, R Hill wrote: > > > Ned Ludd wrote: > > > > Good afternoon, > > > > > > > > probably in portage-2.0.54 a patch will be added to emit split debug > > > > info. Having a split debug allows us to retain all the advantages of > > > > stripping executables while gaining the ability to properly debug > > > > executables in bfd aware programs. It's been in testing with a small > > > > hand full of devs and works quite well, but before it's pushed in we > > > > would like to get input from our devs & users. > > > > > > > > Would you be willing to give up space in $ROOT/usr/lib/debug for ELF > > > > executables by default in order to aid in better debugging by or do we > > > > want to only emit it when a FEATURE= is defined. > > > > > > How much space are we talking about? > > > > There is no fixed size here and depends on the number of packages you > > have and the CFLAGS passed to the programs you build. > > Naturally if you start building all your code with > > CFLAGS="-g3 -ggdb" your going to end up with a larger debug info. > > Of course I will be compiling with CFLAGS="-g3 -ggdb" :) > > The reason I don't do it now is because debug info: > > 1) makes binaries larger > 2) makes binaries slower ( in my experience ( may have to do with 1) ) > > And I don't ( not sure if anyone does ) care about any non-gdb debugger. > > So, can you give us a wild guess about the disk space ? How much does it > take on your system and how many packages do you have installed ? -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 49268 Nov 19 18:00 /usr/bin/scanelf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5292 Nov 19 18:02 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/scanelf.debug I really can't give an accurate example. Halcyon who has been testing it merged world and he was yeilded with 18M of debug info (I have no idea how many packages he has). ChrisWhite has also been merging a lot of merging with it recently to test KDE stuff which is a pretty big package. He may have some useful data that your after. The reason I posted the patch and prepstrip here was so that people could formulate their own opinions. I'm also using an additional patch in my local portage system where I'm sub packaging the debug info and it only gets installed when I tell it to be installed via the emerge -K option. I use some pretty crafty tricks to accomplish this like dynamic ebuild creation. I do this in order to have compressed debug info handy vs having it on the live filesystem. This probably would not be accepted by portage mainline unless I do it in a more elegant way that wont conflict with the future portage-3.x series. > And one more thing. For proper debugging, don't I need the source to be > present ? -g3 -ggdb embeds the source code in the debug info so I don't see the point. -- Ned Ludd Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list