From: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
To: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>, dwz@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: dwz 0.14 release?
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:08:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <caffebbf78ded675d16b072daea67e8c6fb83f5c.camel@klomp.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59176fae-d720-5a9c-e69c-2553706b7ff1@suse.de>
Hi Tom,
On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 10:15 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 2/10/21 1:06 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > The only real issue is the combination of DWARF5 and dwz --odr. We
> > see the following failures in the testsuite:
> >
> > There are still failures with the ODR support when building the
> > testcases with -gdwarf-5, specifically:
> >
> > FAIL: /opt/local/src/dwz/testsuite/dwz.tests/odr-class-ns.sh
> > FAIL: /opt/local/src/dwz/testsuite/dwz.tests/odr-def-decl.sh
> > FAIL: /opt/local/src/dwz/testsuite/dwz.tests/odr-loc.sh
> > FAIL: /opt/local/src/dwz/testsuite/dwz.tests/odr-struct.sh
> > FAIL: /opt/local/src/dwz/testsuite/dwz.tests/odr-struct-ns.sh
> > FAIL: /opt/local/src/dwz/testsuite/dwz.tests/odr-union.sh
> > FAIL: /opt/local/src/dwz/testsuite/dwz.tests/odr-class.sh
> > FAIL: /opt/local/src/dwz/testsuite/dwz.tests/odr-union-ns.sh
> >
> > 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.
> 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.
> 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?
Thanks,
Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-12 10:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-10 12:06 Mark Wielaard
2021-02-11 9:15 ` Tom de Vries
2021-02-12 10:08 ` Mark Wielaard [this message]
2021-02-19 1:16 ` Mark Wielaard
2021-02-26 23:37 ` Mark Wielaard
2021-03-01 10:49 ` tdevries
2021-03-01 11:17 ` Mark Wielaard
2021-03-01 12:40 ` Tom de Vries
2021-03-05 7:26 ` Tom de Vries
2021-03-05 16:24 ` Tom de Vries
2021-03-08 7:14 ` Tom de Vries
2021-03-08 7:22 ` Mark Wielaard
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=caffebbf78ded675d16b072daea67e8c6fb83f5c.camel@klomp.org \
--to=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=dwz@sourceware.org \
--cc=tdevries@suse.de \
/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).