On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote:
> Dehao's patch will make the debugging of the following code (-g -O2)
> less jumpy. After the testing of x > 0, it should go to line 'a++'.
> Without the fix, when stepping through 'abc', the lines covered are
> 6, 4, 11, 13. With the fix it should be 6, 9, 11, 13 -- much better.
I am not convinced. Btw, you do not comment my example at all.
For less jumpiness no line number for inserted stmts works as well.
Richard.
> David
>
>
>
>
> 1. int x;
>
> 2. __attribute__((noinline)) int abc (int *a)
> 3. {
> 4. int ret = 0;
> 5.
> 6. if (x > 0)
> 7. ret += *a;
> 8. else
> 9. a++;
> 10.
> 11. ret += *a;
> 12. return ret;
> 13 }
>
>
> int main()
> {
> int a = 0;
>
> x = -1;
> return abc ( &a);
>
> }
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>> It will make the location info for the newly synthesized stmt more
>>> deterministic, I think.
>>
>> Maybe, but it will increase the jumpiness in the debugger without actually
>> being accurate, no? For example if the partially redundant expression is
>>
>> i + j;
>>
>> then when computed at the insertion point the values of i and j do not
>> necessarily reflect the computed value! Instead we may compute the
>> result of i + j using completely different components / operation.
>>
>> Thus I think inserted expressions should not have any debug information
>> at all because they do not correspond to a source line.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>>>>> This patch aims to improve debugging of optimized code. It ensures
>>>>> that PRE inserted statements have the same source location as the
>>>>> statement at the insertion point, instead of UNKNOWN_LOCATION.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong patch attached.
>>>>
>>>> However, is it really better to have the location of the insertion
>>>> point than to have UNKNOWN_LOCATION? It's not where the value is
>>>> computed in the source program...
>>>>
>>>> Ciao!
>>>> Steven
