Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 09:45:34AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > >> Given that Mark, and for that matter no one else, did not really push >> back, I am pretty much committed not to use dwarf. >> > > Then... what are you going to do about things like types? Invent a new > serialization for those too? I think that confusing dwarf-for-types > and dwarf-for-gimple would be a mistake. > > My part is only the function bodies, we are still going to use dwarf for the types and the global variables. There are people at codesoucery who, even as we speak, are busily enhancing that part to get all of the pieces output, not just the parts used for the debugger.
Kenny
