On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:19:07AM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > 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.
OK, violent agreement. Thanks for clarifying. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery
