grimar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1258677, @alexshap wrote:
> @grimar, this is an interesting observation which I've had on my mind for > quite some time as well; a couple of things which I have not double-checked > yet - just in case - do both gold and lld completely ignore dwo-related > sections ? (did you check that ?), LLVM emits them with the SHF_EXCLUDE flag since the https://reviews.llvm.org/rL342800 "[lib/MC] - Set SHF_EXCLUDE flag for .dwo sections.". So if linker supports SHF_EXCLUDE flag properly, it will ignore it properly. That is true for bfd/gold/LLD atm. LLD does not ignore ".dwo" sections by name and I do not expect other linkers do (and that is fine, we do not want to ignore sections by name generally), so having this flag is an important and clean thing for things to work. > and another small question - just wondering if the debuggers (GDB and LLDB) > are okay with it / or smth needs to be adjusted or fixed on their side. I > guess everything should be fine, but asking just in case. The patch for LLDB is ready to be landed: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52403. It waits for this one, since its test case mentions/uses -gsingle-file-split-dwarf option. I am thinking about rewriting the comment and landing it independently. I did not check the GDB yet. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
