Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:45:17 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-dtrace@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: WITH_CTF vs -g Message-ID: <58B30723-19D6-40FA-97F7-206401C5D2A2@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <54108909.7050908@FreeBSD.org> References: <54108909.7050908@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Andriy; Il giorno 10/set/2014, alle ore 12:23, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> ha scritto: > > In my opinion WITH_CTF should imply -g in CFLAGS otherwise, as far as I can see, > there is nothing to generate CTF data from. Forcing an end-user to remember to > additionally pass -g is not nice. > My understanding is that CTF is meant to be a debugging format independent of DWARF, so it should be especially useful for the cases where there is no debugging information. Just like Illumos, we haven’t really made much (or any) use of CTF outside the kernel but now that is an option: http://dtrace.org/blogs/rm/2013/11/14/userland-ctf-in-dtrace/ > Also, I think that we can always have -g in CTFFLAGS, because the stripping step > takes care of the original DWARF data in any case. But I am not 100% sure about > this. > > What do you think? BTW, it would be nice to see what we can take from the CTF/DDB GSoC [1]. I understand the BSD-licensed CTF library has advanced greatly but still needs more work. Pedro. [1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/soc-status/2014-August/000870.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58B30723-19D6-40FA-97F7-206401C5D2A2>