Frank Ch. Eigler
fche at redhat.com
Mon Jun 30 13:42:19 PDT 2008
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 04:10:31PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > They shouldn't have to repackage it at all - just leave it in the
> > build tree.
> The problem is that I am often juggling multiple kernel builds, and so
> I don't want to keep the full build tree around. So I just want to
> extract out the specific files needed by Systemtap [...]
OK, we'll have to think about how to support that well.
> Stupid question --- has anyone thought about writing tools to strip
> out specific debug information not needed by Systemtap?
Yes, but nothing so simple/workable as to have been done already.
> For example, I assume systemtap doesn't need the line number
> information, since you can't set probes on arbitrary line numbers
Actually, we can - and now with wildcards too if you want
source-line-by-line tracing. See the top of the NEWS file.
> (and even if you could, such tapsets would be so brittle that it
> wouldn't be funny); [...]
Yes, this is not a good fit for tapsets, but is handy for exploring
one's known version of code. Also, we can now use relative line
numbers (line #10 within this function), which might be stable enough
for some tapset use. (This is all very recent stuff, beware.)
> [...] What about stripping out the text segment of the object
> files, so you aren't storing the information twice on disk, or
> compressing the debuginfo files so they take up less room on disk?
This is roughly what the Fedora/RHEL-style separated .ko.debug files
do, though I don't know if they are that complete. (They'd need a
copy of the symbol tables, and probably other stuff.)
More information about the Ksummit-2008-discuss