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 9FA033857809 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:08:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 9FA033857809 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 3125E3032F90; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:08:42 +0100 (CET) Received: by tarox.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DE030413CEBD; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:08:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Subject: Re: dwz 0.14 release? From: Mark Wielaard To: Tom de Vries , dwz@sourceware.org Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:08:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: <59176fae-d720-5a9c-e69c-2553706b7ff1@suse.de> References: <5b6633862f257bac99fa3fccfde18b931ad10cf2.camel@klomp.org> <59176fae-d720-5a9c-e69c-2553706b7ff1@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=-5.6 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: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:08:46 -0000 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: > >=20 > > There are still failures with the ODR support when building the > > testcases with -gdwarf-5, specifically: > >=20 > > 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 > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > I can't reproduce this, can you open an PR with more details? https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D27400 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=3D27401 And another to document the status of DWARF 5: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D27402 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=20