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 3869D385781A for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:14:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 3869D385781A 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 tarox.wildebeest.org (tarox.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4073A3000AC8; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:14:30 +0100 (CET) Received: by tarox.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E8C9B4717E9A; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:14:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <223c53f1c8c2c93dfc49e16ea00c7a3c015a746b.camel@klomp.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add --devel-skip-producer From: Mark Wielaard To: Tom de Vries Cc: dwz@sourceware.org, jakub@redhat.com Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:14:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <0956da43-2f83-83a8-1da2-63916d4b49f6@suse.de> References: <20210316141919.GA24635@delia> <20210316212749.GC3054@wildebeest.org> <0956da43-2f83-83a8-1da2-63916d4b49f6@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-10.el7) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, 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 11:14:33 -0000 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. >=20 > 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. 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). Cheers, Mark