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 1EgJAs-0002vx-LI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:50:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAR9nRq5012730; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:49:27 GMT Received: from mail-relay-1.tiscali.it (mail-relay-1.tiscali.it [213.205.33.41]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAR9liGq014820 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:47:44 GMT Received: from default (84.222.87.163) by mail-relay-1.tiscali.it (7.2.069.1) id 43843212000870D1 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:47:44 +0100 Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:53:14 +0100 X-Mailer: InScribe Message-ID: References: <1133031325.5422.317.camel@localhost> Cc: From: "Kevin F. Quinn" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Split ELF Debug (default or not?) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2a0c3e60-019a-49f5-b3fc-87e18fa95326 X-Archives-Hash: 950f6d752191dbb9aa85bca8ad93f2db On 26/11/2005 13:55:25, Ned Ludd (solar@gentoo.org) wrote: > On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 19:30 +0100, Bruno wrote: > > > What's the advantage of splitting out the debug info to some extra > > location instead of leaving it in the original binary (maybe smaller > > foot-print in memory while the debugging info is not used), > > Yes exactly a stripped binary will occupy less space in RAM. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is true. As I understand it, debug sections aren't part of the PT_LOAD segments so the loader won't load them into memory. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list