[Bug default/21023] The abidw tool does not appear to read dwarf from .dwp files associated with executables

["andrew.c.morrow at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21023

--- Comment #3 from andrew.c.morrow at gmail dot com ---
Hi Mark - 

Thank you for clarifying. It sounds from your description like this will
eventually work automatically, which is great.

My actual goal for using DebugFission was more for the build time improvements,
rather than debug symbol packaging. My use of libabigail/abidw is somewhat
unusual, and also focused on build time improvements:

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18838#c4
http://scons-users.scons.narkive.com/E9RiycaY/replacement-for-sharedlibrarysignatureoverride

I had hoped to be able to use both DebugFission and abidw driven re-link
pruning simultaneously, but it appears that this will not work, for the moment.

I have experimented with dwz as well, with the aim of reducing the size of our
debug symbol packages, but so far without success:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399866. If you have any additional
thoughts on that ticket it would be greatly appreciated. I still don't have an
explanation for why dwz cannot process the output of ld.gold.

I'm also unclear on the intended relationship between dwp and dwz. When I tried
running dwz on dwp files, my recollection is that it didn't work, at all. I'd
presume that the process would be to collect the .dwo files associated with
each binary into a .dwp file for that binary with the dwp tool, and then run
dwz across all the dwp files to extract common symbols into a shared file,
along with any other optimization/compression. I would then hope that abidw run
on the binary would be able to present the full ABI, extracting information
from both the associated .dwp file, and any common underling file produced by
dwz.

Or, perhaps the functionality of dwz should be folded directly into dwp? The
documentation on these tools and the intended direction for development is
somewhat unclear to me.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.