This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: stabs vs. dwarf-2 for C programs
- To: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: stabs vs. dwarf-2 for C programs
- From: jtc at redback dot com (J.T. Conklin)
- Date: 12 Apr 2001 19:30:50 -0700
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <5mwv8pzgvt.fsf@jtc.redback.com><20010412221742.A22383@redhat.com>
- Reply-To: jtc at redback dot com
>>>>> "cgf" == Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
>> In general, are there any advantages for using dwarf-2 over
>> stabs debugging symbols for C (not C++) programs?
>>
>> I did a quick test of rebuilding our system with dwarf-2 debug
>> symbols, and found that the image file grew from 35MB to 167MB
>> and link times nearly quadrupled, so dwarf-2 isn't looking so
>> good so far. If I had to guess, it looks like duplicate debug
>> info (from headers, etc.) isn't being eliminated as is done
>> for stabs.
cgf> Daniel Berlin contributed some duplicate debug elimination code
cgf> to gcc for Dwarf-2. It should be in the gcc 3.0 branch, if you
cgf> are adventurous.
Thanks, I'll check that out.
Assuming that Dan's changes make that a non-issue, are there any other
reasons one might prefer dwarf-2 over stabs for C programs?
--jtc
--
J.T. Conklin
RedBack Networks