David Edelsohn wrote: >>>>>> Mark Mitchell writes: > > Mark> I think we all agree that providing better debugging of optimized code > Mark> is a priori a good thing. So, as I see it, this thread is focused on > Mark> what internal representation we might use for that. > > Yes, it is a good thing, but not at any price. Regardless of the > representation and implementation, there is a cost. This discussion > should not start with the premise that better debugging of optimized code > is better at any cost.
I agree. You're right to state this explicitly, but I'd implicitly expected that we'd do cost/benefit analysis on this feature, as we would any other. > Mark> I'd like to start by > Mark> capturing the functional changes that we want to make to GCC's debug > Mark> output -- not the changes that we want in the debug experience, or > Mark> changes that we need in GDB, but the changes in the generated DWARF. > > Who is "we"? What better debugging are GCC users demanding? What > debugging difficulties are they experiencing? Who is that set of users? > What functional changes would improve those cases? What is the cost of > those improvements in complexity, maintainability, compile time, object > file size, GDB start-up time, etc.? That's what I'm asking. First and foremost, I want to know what, concretely, Alexandre is trying to achieve, beyond "better debugging info for optimized code". Until we understand that, I don't see how we can sensibly debate any methods of implementation, possible costs, etc. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
