First off I would like to say I did not want to reply but I guess I am going to because of some false information spreading around about what GCC as a compiler is.
On 11/7/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm personally getting numerous requests for debug information > correctness and better completeness from debug info consumers such as > gdb, frysk and systemtap. GCC's eagerness to inline functions, even > ones never declared as inline, and its eagerness to corrupt the > meta-information associated with them, causes these tools to > malfunction in very many situations. And it's all GCC's fault, for > generating code that is not standards-compliant in the > meta-information sections of its output. I have to ask, do you want an optimizing compiler or one which generates full debugging information???? Because there are trade off here really. The reason behind the extra inlining is because it improves code generation. I don't know about you but in some area of coding, they need the extra speed/size reductions that inlining of non user marked functions. I have plenty of code which needs the speed help that the extra inling helps (remember some developers don't want to change the code that much to have the optimizing compiler do its work). Remember dwarf3 is not really a standards about meta-information, it just mentions how it represented if it exists. -- Pinski
