This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: Add support for SHF_COMPRESSED
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>,"GDB" <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:19:50 +0000
- Subject: Re: RFC: Add support for SHF_COMPRESSED
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOp7=hH0HSVmbKohv=5JmcV25owj_RtnPYirG1Bhej=XkA at mail dot gmail dot com> <550318C90200007800069E5B at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOoy9dbAw7Kh9+-haTE4gj4331Dk5E1YAr+1Xx+HBzCF0w at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 13.03.15 at 17:13, <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 13.03.15 at 16:31, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> I am working on SHF_COMPRESSED support:
>>> We already have .zdebug* sections, which aren't compatible
>>> with SHF_COMPRESSED scheme due to missing compression
>>> header. What section names should we use for SHF_COMPRESSED
>>> debug sections. Using .debug* or .zdebug* will break existing tools.
>>> I am thinking .zlibdebug* or ..Zdebug*. Any suggestions?
>> Why would they need to have different names anyway? They're
>> distinguishable by the flag.
> Won't the exiting tools, like GDB, choke on compressed .debug* sections?
If they're well behaved, they shouldn't (they should just ignore