This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Should strip discard the .ctf section ?
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Nick Alcock <nick dot alcock at oracle dot com>
- Cc: Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, "Jose E. Marchesi" <jose dot marchesi at oracle dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2019 13:25:51 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Should strip discard the .ctf section ?
- References: <20190906225520.169680-1-nick.alcock@oracle.com> <20190906225520.169680-26-nick.alcock@oracle.com> <20190909004246.GN30165@bubble.grove.modra.org> <87k1a2eix0.fsf@esperi.org.uk> <8e0b48b9-8854-153a-9657-03364f899e97@redhat.com> <87v9thdbce.fsf@esperi.org.uk> <85d68fb7-f128-daf6-f943-0c4018bfd307@redhat.com> <87d0ff6rbf.fsf@esperi.org.uk> <20191003042605.fol35auvqemd5jao@google.com> <87a7af3rrx.fsf@esperi.org.uk>
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Nick Alcock wrote:
...
> By that point you wouldn't want to strip
> it out by default because too many programs would be using it, any more
> than you'd want to strip out, say, .eh_frame.
...
ITYM .debug_frame. Keeping .eh_frame is quite necessary for the
program to work correctly, if or when an exception is thrown.
...
> if leaving it in is not as uncontroversial as
> leaving in .eh_frame, it is too large. Right now it is about 2% of text
> size, i.e. about the same size as .eh_frame:
...
Not just nitpicking, as this may be relevant to your
observations and argumentation based on those statements in the
continued discussion.
brgds, H-P