On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:58:51 +0200, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:41, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:50:39 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > = What I am NOT working on > > [...] > > > - Any other tool, project not mentioned above or other > > > native toolchains like golang, rust, clang/llvm or ocaml. > > > I expect those to simply keep producing DWARF4. > > > > So because of a DWZ deficiency you want to keep DWARF-5 in clang disabled. > > Despite clang supports DWARF-5 better and for a longer time than GCC. > > I did not take it to mean that. I took it to mean that he isn't going to > tell other groups what to work on which a change request seems to have > become. He instead expects them to keep doing what they are doing if they > want versus getting forced to do what he is working on. Currently on files built by clang -gdwarf-5 DWZ will fail: dwz: ./usr/lib64/libmatrix_client.so.0.3.1-0.3.1-2.fc34.x86_64.debug: Unknown debugging section .debug_addr Which is fine as the file just does not get optimized. But that results in rpm size bigger for clang-built binaries by 31.23% as -fdebug-types-section is not used. If -fdebug-types-section was used for clang-built binaries DWZ would fail a similar way but the size increase would be "just" by 6.78%. I do not find there much a difference, just stating. (These percents are relative to total *-debuginfo.rpm size, not to total distribution size.) Jan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
