On 10/09/18 14:29, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 10.09.18 at 15:21, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>>> On 31.08.18 at 10:43, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 31.08.18 at 10:29, <o...@aepfle.de> wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/Kconfig.debug >>>> +++ b/xen/Kconfig.debug >>>> @@ -11,6 +11,13 @@ config DEBUG >>>> >>>> You probably want to say 'N' here. >>>> >>>> +config DEBUG_INFO >>>> + bool "Compile Xen with debug info" >>>> + default y >>>> + ---help--- >>>> + If you say Y here the resulting Xen will include debugging info >>>> + resulting in a larger binary image. >>>> + >>>> if DEBUG || EXPERT = "y" >>> Perhaps better move your addition into this conditional section? >> So this was a bad suggestion after all - with DEBUG=n DEBUG_INFO is >> now implicitly n as well. The section needs to be moved back to where >> you had it as per above, with the _prompt_ depending on >> DEBUG || EXPERT="y". > Furthermore - is COVERAGE without DEBUG_INFO of any use?
Yes - very much so. From a "how much of my binary does do my tests cover" point of view, you want the release binary rather than the debug binary. In some copious free time, I'd like to automate the measurements of "how much of Xen does the XTF suite cover?" > Are there > perhaps any other dependencies (I think/hope live patching logic doesn't > depend on debug info)? The livepatch build depends on xen-syms containing all the debug information, but the runtime logic doesn't, I believe. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
