From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: meissner@cygnus.com
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re:  Dwarf 1 or 2?
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 15:51:00 -0000
Message-id: <199712132351.SAA12753@tweedledumb.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1997-12/msg00795.html

| > The dwarf 2 spec can be found in
| 
| >   ftp://sgigate.sgi.com/pub/dwarf
| 
| > if anyone's interested in doing that work.
| 
| If one was going to switch to dwarf, what would be the better dwarf to
| pick?  Dwarf 1, or 2?  I ask because quite a few different groups
| (processor abi groups) seem to picking up dwarf 1, and no one seems to
| be behind 2 (except Linux and sgi).

Dwarf 2 is a better debugging language.  The ABI groups are going with Dwarf 1
because it is a standard, and the Dwarf 2 group got caught in the changes in
the System V world and went under before having it become a standard.  The
PowerPC ABI group for instance has a bunch of changes to dwarf 1 to support C++
better.  From a practical point of view, the dwarf-2 code in gcc (and possibly
gdb) is still new enough that it may still have bugs.

| I'm interested in user experiences with dwarf 2 systems, (sparc v9
| linux, iris6) with gdb and how well it holds up in relationship to
| stabs.
|