Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 11:25:52 +0100 From: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> Subject: Re: Dwarf changes Message-ID: <l03020908b1564655b2f2@[194.32.164.2]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Does anyone here care about this? >Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:30:27 -0700 >From: Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> >To: PLSIG <plsig@xopen.co.uk> >Subject: Re: Dwarf changes >Resent-From: plsig@opengroup.org >X-Mailing-List: plsig:archive/latest/2296 > >Michael Eager wrote: >> >> Is there interest in reconvening the PLSIG, looking for a sponsor, >> and asserting ownership/control over the Dwarf specification? > >The lack of response is profound. Either the email got lost, >everybody is working too hard, or there is general apathy. > >Please advise. > >-- >Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com >1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077 His original post was: >Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 11:07:32 -0700 >From: Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> >To: PLSIG <plsig@xopen.co.uk> >Subject: Dwarf changes >Resent-From: plsig@opengroup.org >X-Mailing-List: plsig:archive/latest/2295 > >I attended the PowerPC Embedded ABI meeting last week. >The PPC EABI committee, if you are not aware, is an ad hoc >committee of companies supporting IBM/Motorola PowerPC. >The PPC EABI endorses Dwarf 1.1 as its debugging format. >Dwarf 1.1 is Dwarf 1 with some minor changes in the processor >dependent areas. > >There have been other changes to Dwarf 1 proposed and apparently >adopted by the PPC EABI committee, I believe to improve support >for C++, but these have not been well publicized and I don't know >the details. > >There was a long discussion about whether to extend Dwarf 1 >or to endorse Dwarf 2. Some comments were raised that Dwarf 2 >needs modifications, although with only a brief verbal presentation >of the proposed changes I was not able to see a strong rationale >for adopting them. I volunteered to "champion" changes to Dwarf 2 >(with the assistance of Mike Meissner of Cygnus). > >Part of this discussion also revolved around changes to Dwarf 1. >Some of the suggested changes were to pick out pieces of the >Dwarf 2 specification and add them to Dwarf 1, and to add various >other functionality to Dwarf 1 which is duplicated in Dwarf 2, but >which would be implemented in a significantly different fashion. >These extensions sounded like they would be incompatible with >the current Dwarf 1 standard. > >As undercurrent for this discussion was the expressed opinion >that since UI no longer exists and the PLSIG no longer has a sponsor, >that the Dwarf spec has been abandoned and anyone can claim ownership. >This is not the first time I have heard this opinion -- the last >time was with the Tools Interface Standards committee, a Intel >x86-oriented ad hoc industry group, which has since folded. > >I am concerned that a proliferation of different versions of Dwarf 1 >or Dwarf 2 will make producing tools which use these formats more >difficult, and that there will be no readily available and >authoritative source of documentation which describes the format. >We have to look no further than COFF (Common Object File Format) to >find a format which is "common" but has several incompatible variations. >The same holds true for IEEE 695, where the debug information has >been changed significantly over the years, and Stabs, which have a >number of variations, none of which seem well documented. > >I do believe that industry groups which are focused on a specific >processor, whether it be PowerPC, x86, or other, should determine >the processor dependent portions of the Dwarf specifications. I am >far less sanguine about the appropriateness of such a narrow, >processor oriented group deciding on structural changes in the >specification. > >Is there interest in reconvening the PLSIG, looking for a sponsor, >and asserting ownership/control over the Dwarf specification? > >-- >Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com >1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077 -- Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 rb@gid.co.uk fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03020908b1564655b2f2>