From: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>,
Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gas: Add --force-compress-debug-sections
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:11:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0c60eef7-c612-ec37-8c3f-36b746ff8d95@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ccf99bef-4583-5d88-9d1e-50184874ebc0@suse.com>
On 2/24/23 14:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 24.02.2023 13:21, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 2/24/23 12:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 24.02.2023 11:52, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/23 14:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> I think both should be allowed. In a complex build system it may be
>>>>> different entities setting "how" and "whether". (To me "none" falls in
>>>>> the "whether" category together with "force", and it also can be seen
>>>>> as falling in the "how" category together with "zlib" etc. In Linux
>>>>> Kconfig, for example, I'd see this being expressed as first a "whether"
>>>>> choice [yes/maybe/forced] and then a "how" choice dependent upon
>>>>> "whether != none".)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I gave this approach a try.
>>>
>>> Any specific reason you chose + as the separator instead of the more
>>> conventional , ?
>>
>> Yes, I initially went for ',', but ran into:
>> ...
>> $ gcc ~/hello.c -Wa,-gdwarf-5 \
>> -Wa,--compress-debug-sections=zstd,force -c -v
>> ...
>> as -v --64 -gdwarf-5 --compress-debug-sections=zstd force -o hello.o \
>> /tmp/ccOUMqHL.s
>> ...
>> Assembler messages:
>> Error: can't open force for reading: No such file or directory
>> ...
>
> Hmm. I have to admit that I'm not happy with +, irrespective of this
> issue. I wonder what other maintainers think - Nick, Alan?
>
AFAIU you're proposing to use "-Xassembler
--compress-debug-sections=zstd,force" in this case instead of -Wa.
>>> I also wouldn't see anything wrong with something
>>> like "...=force,zstd,none" - the last one(s) win. That's no different
>>> from specifying a second instance of the option. And without that it
>>> looks as if the parsing would end up simpler.
>>
>> OK, gave that a try.
>
> That's still accumulating none and force across the entire sequence
> (and then giving none priority over force, no matter that force may
> have been specified last),
Um, so you're saying that none+zstd+force is currently interpreted as none?
Lets try:
...
$ gcc ~/hello.c -c -Wa,-gdwarf-5 -Xassembler
--compress-debug-sections=none+zstd+force
$ readelf -S -W hello.o | grep " .debug"
[ 9] .debug_line PROGBITS 0000a8 000064 00 C 0 0 8
[11] .debug_line_str PROGBITS 000110 000046 01 MSC 0 0 8
[12] .debug_info PROGBITS 000158 000046 00 C 0 0 8
[14] .debug_abbrev PROGBITS 0001a0 000049 00 C 0 0 8
[15] .debug_aranges PROGBITS 0001f0 000034 00 C 0 0 8
[17] .debug_str PROGBITS 000228 00005a 01 MSC 0 0 8
...
So, that doesn't seem to be the case, compression is done, as expected.
Thanks,
- Tom
> rather than handling things the same as
> when multiple options are specified. With accumulation partially
> removed parsing became less involved, but it can be yet more simple
> when that accumulation is dropped.
>
> In case of contention maybe best to not allow a sequence and hence
> require (in certain cases) two instances of the option to be passed?
> At the very least that's then easier to parse.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-24 14:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-23 12:45 Tom de Vries
2023-02-23 13:08 ` Jan Beulich
2023-02-23 13:27 ` Tom de Vries
2023-02-23 13:44 ` Jan Beulich
2023-02-24 10:52 ` Tom de Vries
2023-02-24 11:28 ` Jan Beulich
2023-02-24 12:21 ` Tom de Vries
2023-02-24 13:23 ` Jan Beulich
2023-02-24 14:11 ` Tom de Vries [this message]
2023-02-24 14:26 ` Jan Beulich
2023-02-24 14:57 ` Tom de Vries
2023-02-27 9:03 ` Jan Beulich
2023-02-27 11:43 ` [PATCH] gas: Add --compress-debug-sections=force Tom de Vries
2023-02-27 11:51 ` Jan Beulich
2023-02-27 13:44 ` [PATCH] gas: Add --force-compress-debug-sections Pedro Alves
2023-02-27 14:07 ` Jan Beulich
2023-02-27 23:24 ` Tom de Vries
2023-02-28 0:19 ` Tom de Vries
2023-02-28 13:21 ` Pedro Alves
2023-02-28 12:49 ` Pedro Alves
2023-02-23 15:23 ` Michael Matz
2023-02-23 15:28 ` Tom de Vries
2023-02-23 15:44 ` Michael Matz
2023-02-23 15:46 ` Tom de Vries
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0c60eef7-c612-ec37-8c3f-36b746ff8d95@suse.de \
--to=tdevries@suse.de \
--cc=amodra@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
--cc=nickc@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).