On 07/02/2019 08:18 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 7/2/19 11:54 AM, Indu Bhagat wrote:
Ping.
Can someone please review these patches ? We would like to get the
support for CTF integrated soon.
I'm not sure there's really even consensus that we want CTF support in
GCC. Though I think that the changes you've made in the last several
weeks do make it somewhat more palatable. But ultimately the first step
is to get that consensus.
Thanks for your message. Absolutely, consensus is the first step. We are
happy to take all the constructive feedback and answer all the concerns to make
certain that CTF support in toolchain will be a useful and worthwhile
contribution.
I'd hazard a guess that Jakub in particular isn't on board as he's been
pushing to some degree for post-processing or perhaps doing it via a
plug in.
Richi has been guiding you a bit through how to make the changes easier
to integrate, but I haven't seen him state one way or the other his
preference on whether or not CTF support is something we want.
I'm hesitant to add CTF support in GCC, but can understand how it might
be useful given the kernel's aversion to everything dwarf. But if the
kernel is the primary consumer than I'd lean towards post-processing.
Kernel is just *one* of the consumers. There are other applications, external
and internal to Oracle, that have shown interest. Not just that, a couple of
distro and package maintainers have shown interest in enabling CTF by default.
Post-processing in kernel and other internally available large applications has
been a deterrent for adoption because of high space and compile-time costs. I
answered some of Jakub's concerns in the post here
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg00131.html.
I would even argue that the usecases will only grow if CTF is properly
supported in the toolchain.
Thanks
