Bryce McKinlay writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > Anthony Green writes: > > > Now that we have a new libgcj in FC-5, azureus logging seems to be > > > working. I've been comparing log files between Sun JRE and gcj runs, > > > and have filed 1 GNU Classpath bug so far. > > > > > > One thing that is annoying is that I'm not getting line numbers in the > > > azureus debug output. Azureus' calls to > > > StackTraceElement.getLineNumber() always result in -1. I have the > > > azureus debug RPM installed, and just assumed that this would be enough > > > to get line number info. Maybe I'm misremembering all this. Should > > > StackTraceElement.getLineNumber() return good info for bc-compiled code? > > > > Yes, it should. However, StackTraceElement.getLineNumber() doesn't > > work with separate debuginfo. > > > We could also solve this by having the Java RPMs strip the rest of > the debug info, but NOT the .debug_line section. .debug_line is > quite compact compared to the rest of the debug info: it adds less > than 1MB to libgcj.so. Is this extra size worth it to always have > stack trace line numbers? > > We would want to make sure that we have a fast line number lookup > before doing that, though. Currently, line number lookups have a > big negative performance impact on certain applications that log > stack traces frequently. Right indeed. If we have a line number lookup of our own, and if it's fast enough, it can just look in the debuginfo files. Andrew.
