On 10 Sep 2014, at 15:31, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Pedro Giffuni wrote this message on Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 13:45 -0500:
Hi Andriy;
Il giorno 10/set/2014, alle ore 12:23, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org>
ha scritto:
In my opinion WITH_CTF should imply -g in CFLAGS otherwise, as far
as I can see,
there is nothing to generate CTF data from. Forcing an end-user to
remember to
additionally pass -g is not nice.
My understanding is that CTF is meant to be a debugging format
independent of DWARF,
so it should be especially useful for the cases where there is no
debugging information.
Except that the CTF data is generated from the DWARF data... Hence
why you need to compile w/ -g... ctfconvert uses the DWARF data to
make the CTF data...
Just like Illumos, we haven?t really made much (or any) use of CTF
outside the kernel
but now that is an option:
http://dtrace.org/blogs/rm/2013/11/14/userland-ctf-in-dtrace/
Also, I think that we can always have -g in CTFFLAGS, because the
stripping step
takes care of the original DWARF data in any case. But I am not
100% sure about
this.
What do you think?
BTW, it would be nice to see what we can take from the CTF/DDB GSoC
[1]. I understand
the BSD-licensed CTF library has advanced greatly but still needs
more work.
Yeh, I need to look at this more too as there are somethings I would
like to do w/ CTF that I can't because the library we have doesn't
export all the data..
And on the main topic, yes, one should imply the other. Go for it.
Best,
George
_______________________________________________
freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
