grimar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1243688, @echristo wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1241928, @probinson wrote: > > > Do we generate the .dwo file directly these days? If not, I can imagine > > wanting to avoid the overhead of the objcopy hack; as long as the linker is > > smart enough not to bother with the .debug_*.dwo sections this seems like a > > build-time win. > > > We do generate them generically with no objcopy hack. Eric, could you elaborate for me your position, please > As far as the standard text here, IMO it was just there in case people didn't > have an objcopy around or don't want to split it. Yeah, we do not want to split it and I see no other way to say clang to keep them in a .o files rather than introducing the new flag. Am I missing something? > I'm not sure why we would want the ability. > That said, if we do I'd rather have it as dwarf5 without split-dwarf as an > option rather than a -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option. What do you mean as "dwarf5 without split-dwarf as an option" here? Do you mean to do split-dwarf by default? It is orthogonal to what this patch does. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
