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

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?



Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Yes, it's deliberate.  People rarely need them just because they're
> debugging something linked to libc.so.6.  Having them slows down GDB
> startup and increases its memory usage, for _every_ debug session.

Ok. Of course, this is also generally an argument against having -dbg
packages for libraries with separated symbols..

> You'll notice if you look closely that libc6-dbg contains two things.
> One of them is a set of libraries you can use if you want to debug
> libc6.  The other is a set of separate symbol files, but they contain
> only frame unwind information, no symbolic or line number information.
> This keeps the size and performance impact of the package down, but
> makes backtraces out of libc6 hugely more reliable.

What are your feelings on only including the -g1 information in library
-dbg packages in general? It does save a lot of space, but the potential
utility also goes way down.

-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: