------- Additional Comments From stuart at apple dot com 2005-01-19 17:08 ------- > So the bug is the end stab without the start stab?
Yes. > Or do you think that this > bit of code that corresponds not at all to any user code should have full > stabs? My personal preference is a mild "yes." But I can forsee that others will disagree, and I recognize the validity of that position. > If the later, why? When I'm grubbing through a broken binary, it's helpful when the debugger tells me that this function body didn't come from the user's sourcecode. In general, "more information is better." I suppose the counterargument would be that most users don't look at the assembly code, don't want to know about these functions, and would prefer smaller debug information for faster linking and development. I assume that most GCC users are unlike me, this I infer their argument wins. I can live with that; this is not a big deal either way. If the debugger already knows the name of this function, and the stabs are not adding any useful information, then I agree they're a waste and should be omitted. The big deal is that the begin/end stabs should match, both emitted or both omitted. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19521
