[pacman-dev] [PATCH] makepkg: tell the compiler to record debugging info for debug packages

[Allan McRae]

On 09/10/17 13:41, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 10/08/2017 09:53 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 08/10/17 16:38, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>>> In commit 8b0d59b83a60eb504567590346119fe4cd891cad support was added for
>>> storing the source files of binaries in debug packages. This made use of
>>> the debugedit program which is part of the RPM package manager, which is
>>> not very standalone.
>>>
>>> The same effect can be achieved using -fdebug-prefix-map, an option
>>> accepted by both the gcc and clang compilers which modifies how the
>>> compiler itself stores the references to the source files rather than
>>> requiring us to later edit the produced binaries. This also removes the
>>> dependency on external programs like debugedit.
>>>
>>> As a result of this change, source files will only be effectively added
>>> for programs which actually use the exported CFLAGS. This is a reasonable
>>> tradeoff as we expect our CFLAGS to be used rather than ignored. Upstream
>>> software which do not produce useful debug packages are expected to fix
>>> their build systems to respect the environment CFLAGS.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz at archlinux.org>
>>
>> This patch is doing many things at once.
>>
>> 1) Add the DBGSRCDIR configuration option
>> 2) Add -fdebug-prefix-map
>> 3) What ever the changes in the while loop are...
>> (at first glance they seem wrong)
>>
>> Please submit as separate patches.
> 
> I can split it into multiple patches, though these really seem to me to
> all be one thing. Or at least the changes to the while loop are a direct
> result of modifying the debug prefixes at build time rather than after
> that while loop during strip_file(). Using -fdebug-prefix-map means
> source_files() no longer reports what it originally did when you
> authored commit 8b0d59b83a60eb504567590346119fe4cd891cad. I think I
> correctly modified that function to work in reverse but I could be wrong
> as I never did take a close look at what it does.
> 
> I suppose I could split out the DBGSRCDIR configuration option you asked
> for, but I'd prefer to keep the other bits together as this ensures
> bisecting each patch still works as expected.
> 

Yes - keep #2 and #3 together.  I did not realise what the changes in
the while loop did.

Allan