This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: stabs and macro information
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: David Taylor <dtaylor at emc dot com>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:29:54 -0400
- Subject: Re: stabs and macro information
On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 01:27 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:58:19AM -0400, David Taylor wrote:
I didn't want to get into this argument, as there are companies that
have valid reasons not to use DWARF2 given the current implementations,
particularly those compaonies that end up with 1 gigabyte with stabs
info, and 5 gigabytes with dwarf2 info, or something like that.
Currently, when invoked with -gdwarf-2 -g3, gcc will record macro
information in a .debug_macinfo elf section. And when presented with
an executable containing macro information in a .debug_macinfo
section, gdb will make use of it.
Many companies, including EMC, still use stabs. So... it would be
nice if the same was true of stabs.
A more interesting question, to me, is why EMC still needs to use
However, I was going to ask whether the cost of *adding* more features
to the STABS implementations in gdb and gcc is worth the future
maintenance cost at this point in the life of STABS.
They are an inferior debug format, extremely hard to parse or
extend. GCC's and GDB's current implementations of DWARF-2 (and 3) are
somewhat lacking, but it's all fixable.
And, more importantly, in the process of being fixed.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer