From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20907 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2019 03:18:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20899 invoked by uid 89); 3 Jul 2019 03:18:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=lean, H*M:b8e5 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 03:18:24 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5098930BDE59; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 03:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-19.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF497E695; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 03:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC,V3 0/5] Support for CTF in GCC To: Indu Bhagat , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Indu Bhagat References: <1561617445-9328-1-git-send-email-indu.bhagat@oracle.com> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <0086f709-b8e5-fc73-1679-4a39e0f4e673@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 03:18:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 On 7/2/19 11:54 AM, Indu Bhagat wrote: > Ping. > Can someone please review these patches ? We would like to get the > support for CTF integrated soon. I'm not sure there's really even consensus that we want CTF support in GCC. Though I think that the changes you've made in the last several weeks do make it somewhat more palatable. But ultimately the first step is to get that consensus. I'd hazard a guess that Jakub in particular isn't on board as he's been pushing to some degree for post-processing or perhaps doing it via a plug in. Richi has been guiding you a bit through how to make the changes easier to integrate, but I haven't seen him state one way or the other his preference on whether or not CTF support is something we want. I'm hesitant to add CTF support in GCC, but can understand how it might be useful given the kernel's aversion to everything dwarf. But if the kernel is the primary consumer than I'd lean towards post-processing. Jeff