What's wild to me is not using -gsplit-dwarf to have separate debug info and "normal-sized" binaries

Google contributed the code, and the entire concept, of DWARF fission to both GCC and LLVM. This suggests that rather than overlooking something obvious that they'll be embarrassed to learn on HN, they were aware of the issues and were using the solutions before you'd even heard of them.

▲

sionisrecur 7 hours ago | parent [-]

A case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?

▲

jeffbee 7 hours ago | parent [-]

There's no contradiction, no missing link in the facts of the story. They have a huge program, it is 2GiB minus epsilon of .text, and a much larger amount of DWARF stuff. The article is about how to use different code models to potentially go beyond 2GiB of text, and the size of the DWARF sections is irrelevant trivia.

▲

jcelerier 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> They have a huge program, it is 2GiB minus epsilon of .text,

but the article says 25+GiB including debug symbols, in a single binary?

also, I appreciate your enthusiasm in assuming that because some people do something in an organization, it is applied consistently everywhere. Hell, if it were microsoft other departments would try to shoot down the "debug tooling optimization" dpt

	▲	loeg 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, the 25GB figure in the article is basically irrelevant to the 2GB .text section concern. Most ELF files that size are 95%+ debuginfo.
	▲	jeffbee 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		ELF is just a container format and you can put literally anything into one of its sections. Whether the DWARF sections are in "the binary" or in another named file is really quite beside the point.