[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#976462: tech-ctte: Should dbgsym files be compressed via objcopy --compress-debug-section or not?

Thanks for your reply.
The links to bugs you included add much needed detail to this

>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> writes:

    Matthias> as pre-processing.  So we know since about three years
    Matthias> that dwz doesn't support compressed debug symbols.  Your
    Matthias> language about "claims", "might", and so on is not
    Matthias> appropriate.

No, we know that three years ago dwz didn't support compressed debug
Since that information is three years out of date, you get my  "might"
and "claim" language.

You're the binutils maintainer!
If you happen to know that dwz still doesn't support compressed symbols
then *say that* and all my language about "might" and "claim" will go
I absolutely trust your knowledge about what our elf stack does.
It's possible it's a language issue, but so far you've used rather vague
language rather than making specific claims in an area where you are an

If you don't know, that's fine.
But if no one who would like to see us move away from compressed debug
symbols has chosen to check and see whether dwz still requires
uncompressed symbols, well, I think that is significant.
I think the primary burden  of arguing for a change lies with those
proposing that change.
So, I do think that people proposing a change need to do things like
find out what specific tools break.

(Including pointers to bugs as you have done in the last mail also
counts as providing that sort of justification.
I'll admit that I don't see how the pointer to the rpm find-debuginfo
script quite fits in, but I think I follow the valgrind issue.)

Reply to: