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: >=20 > 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. >=20 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=92t 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/=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. =1B[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>