From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (wildebeest.demon.nl [212.238.236.112]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78B263870860 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 01:17:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 78B263870860 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mark@klomp.org Received: from librem (deer0x15.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B60C30006D6; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 02:17:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by librem (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 533D3C097C; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 02:16:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 02:16:12 +0100 From: Mark Wielaard To: Tom de Vries , dwz@sourceware.org Subject: Re: dwz 0.14 release? Message-ID: <20210219011612.GK3149@wildebeest.org> References: <5b6633862f257bac99fa3fccfde18b931ad10cf2.camel@klomp.org> <59176fae-d720-5a9c-e69c-2553706b7ff1@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no 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: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 01:17:27 -0000 Hi Tom, On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:08:42AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > I haven't really investigated why that is. But we can always say > > > that ODR support is experimental and doesn't yet work for DWARF5. > > > > I can't reproduce this, can you open an PR with more details? > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27400 > Let me know if you need any test binaries and I'll attach them to the > bug. So, this was fixed already. And we found some subtle other bugs. > > Anyway, odr will be experimental. It still need to marked as such. > > Also opened a bug for that: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27401 > > And another to document the status of DWARF 5: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27402 > > I'll resolve that by updating dwz.1 with an overview of the current > support for DWARF 5 in dwz. I just pushed a patch for this. > > Furthermore, I still need to go through the PR list and clean up. > > We have about 50 open bugs. I can go through them and see if any of > them is a showstopper/regression since 0.13, but given that various > distros have switched to current git trunk already I think what we have > now is consistently better than 0.13. What would be the most convenient > to mark up the bugs? There are 53 open bugs right now. I looked briefly at all of them. Most are ideas for improvements of various forms. For more optimizations or supporting certain DWARF constructs. A couple simply don't have enough information to replicate the issue. Or are for things that are hard to support, like the mips bug (26738) or the emit-relocs issue (24345). I don't believe any of the bugs are regressions since 0.13. But the following 6 bugs seem good to take a quick look at to see if a fix is easy, but none of them seem like real showstoppers for a release. Since there are a lot of things fixed and new features since 0.13 I think we should do a release as soon as we know these aren't fixed in a couple of days. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26252 [odr] dwz.c:11404: write_die: Assertion `value && refdcu->cu_kind != CU_ALT' failed. #2 For which you just posted a patch. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24275 hardlink handling leaves temporary file if not file compressed This is mostly an annoyance, but I haven't figured out the code to fix it. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27401 Document that the --odr flag is currently experimental Would be nice to have documented what works and what still needs work There are a couple of ODR bugs for which I didn't know the current status, e.g. Bug 24198 (which is the tracker bug?) https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27363 Emit more detailed diagnostic output for "Unknown DWARF" This has improved a bit. I don't think we need to go so far as the reporter would like. But we could add a bit more output to some of the errors like we did in commit 4705796eb "Add DIE offsets in error messages to make it easier to find what is wrong." https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25252 dwz: returns exit status 1, causing FTBFS in deal.ii This seems partially fixed, but still has a patch that looks plausible, but I don't really know if it is still needed. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25459 Forward pseudo-reference triggers error Seems like a real issue. And has a test binary that triggers the issue. On the other hand this test binary is slightly odd. It is referenced in a couple of other bug reports, but it seems unclear how it was ever generated. This might not be easily fixable without adding a new pass over the whole DIE tree. Unless someone has a clever idea. Cheers, Mark