On Dec 18, 2007, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Yep. Sometimes code just is optimized away. Can't stop that without >> harming optimizations.
> OK, so you are agreeing that good debuggability is impossible > with all the optimizations in place, so once again, let's have > an optimziation level that optimizes as far as possible without > harming debuggability. I don't oppose such an optimization level, even though I don't know that we agree on what "good debuggability" stands for. It's just that changing optimizations is precisely *against* the goals of my current project. So, don't expect significant efforts to this end from me at this time. >> If dwarf line number programs were smarter, we could perhaps encode >> multiple lines for the same instruction, along with conditions to tell >> when the instruction applies to such or such lines, and even more >> fancy stuff like that. But line number programs don't let us express >> this in Dwarf3. > So, that's not an option. Yup. Best we can do right now is to emit the condition line number. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
