On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 6:00 AM Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 9:22 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > DWARF v5 is the latest standard of the DWARF debug info format. > > > > DWARF5 wins significantly in terms of size and especially so when mixed > > with compression (CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_COMPRESSED). > > > > Link: http://www.dwarfstd.org/doc/DWARF5.pdf > > > > Patch 1 places the DWARF v5 sections explicitly in the kernel linker > > script. > > Patch 2 modifies Kconfig for DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4 to be used as a fallback. > > Patch 3 adds an explicit Kconfig for DWARF v5 for clang and older GCC > > where the implicit default DWARF version is not 5. > > > > Changes from v8: > > * Separate out the linker script changes (from v7 0002). Put those > > first. Carry Reviewed by and tested by tags. Least contentious part > > of the series. Tagged for stable; otherwise users upgrading to GCC 11 > > may find orphan section warnings from the implicit default DWARF > > version changing and generating the new debug info sections. > > * Add CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT in 0002, make it the > > default rather than CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4, as per Mark, Jakub, > > Arvind. > > * Drop reviewed by and tested by tags for 0002 and 0003; sorry > > reviewers/testers, but I view that as a big change. I will buy you > > beers if you're fatigued, AND for the help so far. I appreciate you. > > All 3 patches NACKed - I drink no beer. LoL. Other than beer, I am fine with v9. Personally, I thought v8 (no CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT) was good too, but I do not have a strong opinion about leaving the compiler's freedom to choose the dwarf version. Unless somebody has an objection, I will pick up v9 for the next MW. Meanwhile, if you want to give reviewed-by / tested-by please do so. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
