Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 11:53:59 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, Ryan Libby <rlibby@gmail.com>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org" <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r322824 - in head: lib/clang share/mk usr.bin/clang Message-ID: <4019876.lu34otUPCV@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqfR_KN0j2-7eJ8J0PAAQHajcEEX=z4V%2BDPgMz-kjCS4g@mail.gmail.com> References: <201708232330.v7NNUPpV052276@repo.freebsd.org> <CAPyFy2AQRVQu-HBGtBDTU0OnmYhcBKMg9OX-vaGVpfA%2B=v-Grw@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqfR_KN0j2-7eJ8J0PAAQHajcEEX=z4V%2BDPgMz-kjCS4g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, August 25, 2017 12:30:11 PM Warner Losh wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On 25 August 2017 at 14:07, Ryan Libby <rlibby@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:30 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >> Author: jhb > > >> Date: Wed Aug 23 23:30:25 2017 > > >> New Revision: 322824 > > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/322824 > > >> > > >> Log: > > >> Improve the coverage of debug symbols for MK_DEBUG_FILES. > > >> > > ... > > > This causes llvm to emit hundreds of new warnings [1] for > > > "DWARF2 only supports one section per compilation unit" > > > > > > Are these expected? Are they a concern? Should we silence them? > > > Is this an upstream llvm bug [2]? > > > > I'm not sure they were "expected" but I guess are an unsurprising > > consequence of building more things with debug. In any case they're > > not a concern. > > > > It is an llvm bug (the warning really ought not be emitted for empty > > sections), but upstream is probably not too concerned as (most? all) > > other platforms are not using dwarf2. > > > > The right answer for us is likely to just stop defaulting to dwarf2 > > (and specifying it via CFLAGS for kernel if necessary). > > > > What's the status of kicking gdb out of the tree? If we kick it out, we can > stop doing dwarf2 and move to something more modern. Last time this issue > came up, that was the decision, pending a few issues with the gdb port > which I think John Baldwin is getting close to reaching closure on. gdb is mostly disabled in-tree, but there is no in-tree replacement for the kgdb stack trace from /usr/sbin/crashinfo if the gdb port is not installed, and there won't be until lldb grows some kernel support. OTOH, for most platforms /usr/bin/gdb is now disabled (hidden in /usr/libexec) so isn't relevant for userland binaries certainly. The kernel probably doesn't benefit much from DWARF > 2 (except perhaps for .dwo files if we decide to use those at some point) as the other things added since DWARF2 are largely about handling C++ features like r-value references, etc. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4019876.lu34otUPCV>