Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
This is the mail archive of thebinutils@sources.redhat.commailing list for thebinutils project.
Re: RFC: Support for separate debug info files
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:43:26 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFC: Support for separate debug info files
- References: <m3ptlllzp9.fsf@redhat.com> <vt2u1awsplu.fsf@zenia.home>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 08:36:29AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:> > Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:> > This leads me to my main point. Do we need the ability to create> > stripped debuginfo files ? The original patch did this, but it> > turns out to be problematical since the debuginfo files need to> > contain dummy versions of the .text, .data, etc sections. Doing> > this, rather than just stripping them out, looked non-trivial, so I> > decided to skip it for this version.> > > > My theory is that the only benefit gained by being able to ship a> > stripped debuginfo file as opposed to an unstripped one is that it> > reduces the shipping size, making a distribution smaller. I am> > assuming that hard disk space is not really an issue, just the size> > of the shipped binaries.> > I think the idea is to omit the debug info files altogether from the> distribution. It'll make the debug info packages take longer to> download, but it's not a show-stopper, I think.For me it probably is a show-stopper - the issue is not download timeor disk space, but CD size. Duplicating all the binaries we want toprovide debug info for would probably push us over the edge. It couldbe done separately though! This will at least let us test it...-- Daniel JacobowitzMontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
[8]ページ先頭