From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E8E5385BF9E for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:44:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 9E8E5385BF9E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tdevries@suse.de X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00A9AC24; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add --devel-skip-producer To: Mark Wielaard Cc: dwz@sourceware.org, jakub@redhat.com References: <20210316141919.GA24635@delia> <20210316212749.GC3054@wildebeest.org> <0956da43-2f83-83a8-1da2-63916d4b49f6@suse.de> <223c53f1c8c2c93dfc49e16ea00c7a3c015a746b.camel@klomp.org> From: Tom de Vries Message-ID: <157149f3-9315-f63c-3a21-ec509f9388f0@suse.de> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 13:44:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <223c53f1c8c2c93dfc49e16ea00c7a3c015a746b.camel@klomp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: dwz@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Dwz mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:44:17 -0000 On 3/17/21 12:14 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 11:46 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >> On 3/16/21 10:27 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: >>> It is useful as --devel option, but I would be against it as non- >>> devel >>> option. >> >> Could you explain in more detail why you would be against this as a >> non-devel option? F.i., I'm curious, is it an abstract objection, or >> do >> you foresee concrete problems with the approach? > > Of course I would never call my own objections abstract :) > But it partly is. I think it is questionable if we have to rely on the > producer string to do the right thing. I'd say dropping a CU is not the right thing, it's a workaround, and relying on the producer string for a workaround sounds acceptable to me. > But specifically just dropping a > whole CU DIE tree seems the wrong thing to do (what about the ranges, > loclists, stmt_lists left behind for example). Yeah, the feature may not be complete yet. F.i. if there's a dwarf expression in a loclist referring to a DIE in the dropped CU, then that'll blow up probably. But for dwarf generated by assemblers, which is not that complicated, this seems good enough. Thanks, - Tom