On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:58:51 +0200, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:41, Jan Kratochvil
> 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
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