Eric Christopher writes:
>>> So my question is whether the saving in the size of the debug info with
>>> -msym32 is really worth the trouble here or should we just start generating
>>> 64-bit addresses with -msym32?
>>
>> Generating 64-bit addresses would be fine with me FWIW. I'm not sure
>> the
Richard Sandiford writes:
> How about the patch below? I'll apply it in the next couple of days
> if there are no objections.
Thanks for patch. I also like the new comments you added.
Adam
>> So my question is whether the saving in the size of the debug info with
>> -msym32 is really worth the trouble here or should we just start generating
>> 64-bit addresses with -msym32?
>
> Generating 64-bit addresses would be fine with me FWIW. I'm not sure
> the current behaviour is exactly de
Adam Nemet writes:
> -msym32 changes DWARF's address_size from 64 bits to 32 bits. This means that
> while symbols are 64-bit (due to ELF64), target addresses in the debug info
> are 32-bit.
>
> There is support for this in DWARF of course in fact you can specify different
> address_size for each
-msym32 changes DWARF's address_size from 64 bits to 32 bits. This means that
while symbols are 64-bit (due to ELF64), target addresses in the debug info
are 32-bit.
There is support for this in DWARF of course in fact you can specify different
address_size for each compilation unit which nicely
