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 1EgV0h-00063y-7I for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:28:39 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jARMRur6009084; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:27:56 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 jARMP0sk030743 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:25:00 GMT Received: (qmail 23095 invoked by uid 210); 27 Nov 2005 17:18:06 -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 0.059194 secs); 27 Nov 2005 22:18:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO montgomery-57.epproach.net) (64.192.53.57) by 0 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2005 17:18:06 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split ELF Debug (default or not?) From: Ned Ludd To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1133125287.7388.4.camel@home.yosifov.net> References: <1133027430.5317.307.camel@localhost> <1133094251.5422.356.camel@localhost> <1133096987.26860.5.camel@home.yosifov.net> <1133098829.5422.409.camel@localhost> <1133104957.15135.22.camel@capella.catmur.co.uk> <1133106270.5422.451.camel@localhost> <1133110523.5317.483.camel@localhost> <1133125287.7388.4.camel@home.yosifov.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:24:57 -0500 Message-Id: <1133130297.5317.504.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: 8f115fc1-7a7b-479f-ba3a-516a1d9ae8c4 X-Archives-Hash: 65425ce3cfffab822ec87e9b08a3bccf On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:01 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote: > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 11:55 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:44 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:22 +0000, Edward Catmur wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 08:40 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:09 +0200, Ivan Yosifov wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > It doesn't; at least not with gcc 3.4.4. It does embed function > > > > prototypes and macro definitions, though. > > > > > > > > Ed Catmur > > > > > > Eh? > > > > > > Never mind you were right Ed. taviso pointed out that dwarf2 doesnt > > support embedding the actual source. I was seeing the source due to me > > not having deleted the source. > > > > Guess that is where the debugedit thing of Tester's would come in handy > > on glibc hosts. > > What is this debugedit thing for us non-devs ? IMO portage should have > some way to keep the sources around for debugging, for the patch you are > proposing to be fully useful. Having the source around or not does not make the splitdebug feature any less useful. debugedit would however enhance some aspects of debugging. See the comments posted at the top of this thread from tester@gentoo on debugedit. -- Ned Ludd Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list