[Bug default/21023] The abidw tool does not appear to read dwarf from .dwp files associated with executables

["mark at klomp dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21023

--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
(In reply to andrew.c.morrow from comment #3)
> Thank you for clarifying. It sounds from your description like this will
> eventually work automatically, which is great.

It will however take some work, it is not really trivial to support. Also while
GNU DebugFission is being standardized in the upcoming DWARFv5 there have been
various changes. So it isn't clear yet which tools will support which version.

> I have experimented with dwz as well, with the aim of reducing the size of
> our debug symbol packages, but so far without success:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399866. If you have any
> additional thoughts on that ticket it would be greatly appreciated. I still
> don't have an explanation for why dwz cannot process the output of ld.gold.

I commented on that bug report. It looks like the linker is creating a bogus
.bss section, but there is not really enough information in the bug report to
know for sure.

> I'm also unclear on the intended relationship between dwp and dwz. When I
> tried running dwz on dwp files, my recollection is that it didn't work, at
> all. I'd presume that the process would be to collect the .dwo files
> associated with each binary into a .dwp file for that binary with the dwp
> tool, and then run dwz across all the dwp files to extract common symbols
> into a shared file, along with any other optimization/compression. I would
> then hope that abidw run on the binary would be able to present the full
> ABI, extracting information from both the associated .dwp file, and any
> common underling file produced by dwz.
> 
> Or, perhaps the functionality of dwz should be folded directly into dwp? The
> documentation on these tools and the intended direction for development is
> somewhat unclear to me.

The have been developed completely independently and I don't think anybody has
really thought about how to combine them. They also serve somewhat different
purposes. And not many tools support both DWARF debuginfo data/file variants.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.