Am Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:35:06 +0000 schrieb "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladi...@thecybershadow.net>:
> On Tuesday, 18 November 2014 at 18:55:43 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: > > Is it fair if I argue that fixing DWARF info generation is a > > better solution then? > > I don't know. Probably. Not all tools may read DWARF info. Also, > I'm not sure if this is related but Phobos/Druntime are currently > built without -g, although enabling it should be a much less > controversial change. Were the tools just not upgraded for amd64 or is there a specific reason they require stack frame pointers? How do they work on 64-bit Linux distributions in general that have no stack frame pointers? If they are good tools, but never worked on amd64 reliably, well ... D executables without frame pointers don't make the situation any worse, right? Regarding the -g switch, I guess we could call the debug information that is required for proper exception handling on Linux "part of the language" and always generate it independently of the -g switch. Similar to how we currently require the --export-dynamic linker switch in dmd.conf. I'm really not knowledgeable about this stuff. Are we trying to do more here than C++? Does C++ also require DWARF debug information for stack unwinding? -- Marco