From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [3/4] RFC: add DWARF index support
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:11:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100706171142.GA24412@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m38w5oeeqv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:50:32 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> My thinking is that we only need 64 bit for CU offsets. It seems very
> unlikely to me that an index file could be bigger than 4G (not 2G, since
> the offsets are all unsigned).
>
> Also I have been thinking a little about the 64 bit obstack patch. I
> think we can avoid it by going a different route:
[...]
> Second, if we have a section we cannot map (say it is compressed or
> something), we could just malloc memory for it instead of using the
> obstack. The last "read DWARF in the background" patch has the needed
> infrastructure to make this work ok, basically having a destructor
> function for sections in dwarf2read.c.
>
> What do you think?
Frankly, I do not want to reinvent the optimizations for tiny, small, medium,
compact, large and huge memory models. :-) Any size should be 64bit and it is
a bug if it is not. I was reluctant to make review notes on more places using
`int' memory sizes in your patch. I find needlessly labor-expensive to
evaluate each memory size if it really can always fit in 32bit or not.
> Tom> + [1] The mtime of the objfile, as a 64-bit little-endian value.
>
> Jan> Do you have some specific needs for storing timestamp into the file?
> Jan> When such index files will be packaged by distros it may create needless
> Jan> differences across various verifications. Isn't make(1)-like timestamp
> Jan> dependency enough?
>
> If the distro processes modify timestamps, then it seems like we also
> could not rely on them to remain ordered.
With various filesystems and network filesystems having interesting timestamp
rules it would be best to avoid depending on it at all.
> One idea would be to store the build-id and only verify it if the
> objfile has a .note.gnu.build-id section.
Good point, I find .gdb-index file should have exactly the same verification
rules as the .debug file has. (That is crc32 if build-id is not available.)
Thanks,
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-06 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-30 22:46 Tom Tromey
2010-07-04 18:18 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-07-04 19:28 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-07-06 16:50 ` Tom Tromey
2010-07-06 17:11 ` Jan Kratochvil [this message]
2010-07-06 17:31 ` Tom Tromey
2010-07-06 17:36 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-07-06 17:35 ` Tom Tromey
2010-07-06 17:37 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-07-08 17:01 ` Tom Tromey
2010-07-08 18:25 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-07-08 20:35 ` Tom Tromey
2010-07-08 20:52 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-07-08 17:02 ` Tom Tromey
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=20100706171142.GA24412@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net \
--to=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=tromey@redhat.com \
/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).