> Thanks. But you still need to look at existing minidebuginfo tests and > see if you can enhance them. Otherwise we have a variable that isn't > tested.
OK, I will check want I can do. > Also, if minidebuginfo distro feature is enabled, do we actually need > this level of control? Why not just always have the needed bits? On some architectures, such as x86_64 and aarch64, the .eh_frame section that is *not* stripped because used for C++ exception handling, can be used for DWARF-based stack unwinding purposes. On those architectures, one can rely on .eh_frame + minidebuginfo to get DWARF based backtraces. So no need for the PACKAGE_KEEP_SECTIONS there. However, on ARMv7, the .eh_frame section is empty and the ARM specific .exidx section is not enough to get full backtraces, as discussed here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117941 For that specific architecture, it then makes sense to instruct 'strip' to leave the .debug_frame section. By setting for instance: PACKAGE_KEEP_SECTIONS:armv7a = ".debug_frame" So minidebuginfo and PACKAGE_KEEP_SECTIONS are two very different things, serving different purposes. Even though the combination of both is required on some architectures to get full backtraces, I don't think that they should be tied together. > You can split into at least four commits: > > - change of runstrip signature > - change of strip_execs signature > - adding new variable to package.py > - adding new variable to staging class. OK, thanks for the suggestion. Mathieu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#210808): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/210808 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/110989612/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
