From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9F8623988422; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:02:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9F8623988422 From: "tromey at sourceware dot org" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug gdb/23710] gdb is slow and memory hungry consuming debug generated with LTO by GCC Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:02:51 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb X-Bugzilla-Version: 8.2.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tromey at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:02:51 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D23710 --- Comment #22 from Tom Tromey --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #21) > (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #20) > > Tom -- > >=20 > > See https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-June/179765.html > > I found out that if the test case from this patch is changed > > to use DW_LANG_C, it will fail. (Of course I thinko'd that message > > and wrote C++, but the test already uses C++...) > >=20 >=20 > You mean gdb.dwarf2/imported-unit-bp.exp? That test-case uses C, right? Yeah,sorry. I double confused myself I guess. If you convert that test to use DW_LANG_C_plus_plus, then run it, it will f= ail. So it seems to me that this patch had some unintended consequence. I haven't looked into why, and TBH it doesn't really make sense to me. > > Furthermore, the skipping should probably also be done in the psymtab > > reader, not just the full reader. >=20 > Maybe, not sure yet. Normally the rule is that the psymtab reader and the full symtab reader must agree. Now, this case is a bit weird in that nothing really checks whether a psymtab dependency is really read in. Though, the above failure seems to indicate that it may matter. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=