This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: stabs vs. dwarf-2 for C programs
- To: jtc at redback dot com
- Subject: Re: stabs vs. dwarf-2 for C programs
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:00:22 -0700
- CC: gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <5mwv8pzgvt.fsf@jtc.redback.com>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin)
> Date: 12 Apr 2001 19:13:26 -0700
> In general, are there any advantages for using dwarf-2 over
> stabs debugging symbols for C (not C++) programs?
In general, dwarf-2 is much more expressive and can deal better
with some of the more complex optimisations that gcc can do.
(I don't know if this actually works yet.)
> I did a quick test of rebuilding our system with dwarf-2 debug
> symbols, and found that the image file grew from 35MB to 167MB
> and link times nearly quadrupled, so dwarf-2 isn't looking so
> good so far. If I had to guess, it looks like duplicate debug
> info (from headers, etc.) isn't being eliminated as is done
> for stabs.
Yes, no-one has yet taught the linker how to eliminate all the
duplicates.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>