Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:07:16 -0400 From: "George Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: "John-Mark Gurney" <jmg@funkthat.com> Cc: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, freebsd-dtrace@freebsd.org, freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WITH_CTF vs -g Message-ID: <4227AECE-CD12-4C1E-B610-8BE81E6DBF0D@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <20140910193120.GA82175@funkthat.com> References: <54108909.7050908@FreeBSD.org> <58B30723-19D6-40FA-97F7-206401C5D2A2@freebsd.org> <20140910193120.GA82175@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10 Sep 2014, at 15:31, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Pedro Giffuni wrote this message on Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 13:45 -0500: >> Hi Andriy; >> >> Il giorno 10/set/2014, alle ore 12:23, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> >> ha scritto: >> >>> >>> In my opinion WITH_CTF should imply -g in CFLAGS otherwise, as far >>> as I can see, >>> there is nothing to generate CTF data from. Forcing an end-user to >>> remember to >>> additionally pass -g is not nice. >>> >> >> My understanding is that CTF is meant to be a debugging format >> independent of DWARF, >> so it should be especially useful for the cases where there is no >> debugging information. > > Except that the CTF data is generated from the DWARF data... Hence > why you need to compile w/ -g... ctfconvert uses the DWARF data to > make the CTF data... > >> Just like Illumos, we haven?t really made much (or any) use of CTF >> outside the kernel >> but now that is an option: >> >> http://dtrace.org/blogs/rm/2013/11/14/userland-ctf-in-dtrace/ >> >> >>> Also, I think that we can always have -g in CTFFLAGS, because the >>> stripping step >>> takes care of the original DWARF data in any case. But I am not >>> 100% sure about >>> this. >>> >> >>> What do you think? >> >> >> BTW, it would be nice to see what we can take from the CTF/DDB GSoC >> [1]. I understand >> the BSD-licensed CTF library has advanced greatly but still needs >> more work. > > Yeh, I need to look at this more too as there are somethings I would > like to do w/ CTF that I can't because the library we have doesn't > export all the data.. > And on the main topic, yes, one should imply the other. Go for it. Best, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4227AECE-CD12-4C1E-B610-8BE81E6DBF0D>