It appears that portions of the LTO information are emitted in the usual
debugging sections, rather, information that would already be present there
is shared. This is great for reducing the size of object files that
contain both
LTO info and debugging info, but means that LTO breaks if 'strip --s
> Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> I'm not sure if it's intended, but I don't think it's desirable. The
Diego> information needed to do LTO optimizations should be independent from
Diego> the debugging information.
Diego> We could have a --strip-lto option for strip, but I don't think
Diego>
William Maddox wrote:
It appears that portions of the LTO information are emitted in the usual
debugging sections, rather, information that would already be present there
is shared. This is great for reducing the size of object files that
contain both
LTO info and debugging info, but means that
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:03:15PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's intended, but I don't think it's desirable. The
> information needed to do LTO optimizations should be independent from the
> debugging information.
FWIW, I disagree - not least because this makes GCC much mor
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:03:15PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> I'm not sure if it's intended, but I don't think it's desirable. The
>> information needed to do LTO optimizations should be independent from the
>> debugging information.
>
> FWIW, I disagree - not lea
Sharing beteen the debug info and the LTO info is a very a good thing, and
I feel that we should not adopt a solution that breaks that. I'd really rather
leave 'strip --strip-debug' broken than bloat up the object files. The sort of
solution I would favor would be to make 'strip' smarter so that
William Maddox wrote:
> Sharing beteen the debug info and the LTO info is a very a good thing, and
> I feel that we should not adopt a solution that breaks that. I'd really
> rather
> leave 'strip --strip-debug' broken than bloat up the object files. The sort
> of
> solution I would favor woul
On Nov 18, 2007 12:11 PM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In particular, in the
> current implementation, none of the debug information for the bodies of
> functions (i.e., that describing local variables, line numbers for
> statements, etc.) is required for LTO processing. The LTO us
