On 2012-04-05 08:17:57 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >But no-optimizations (-O0) should not necessarily be the default > >for these reasons. > > I think it is a problem that even at -O1 the debugger is > seriously limited, especially for an inexperienced user.
OK. Now, AFAIK, compiling and running programs occurs much more often than debugging them. So, I would say that -O1 should be the default. The user can still recompile his program with -O0 (or future better option) if he needs to run the debugger on it; if he doesn't know that, there should be some feature in the debugger to tell the user what to do. > What is missing to me is a reasonable cleanup of the code that > would remove some of the junk at -O0 but not impact debugging. > In fact a reasonable criterion would be all the optimization > that is cheap to do and does not affect debugging. I think that for debugging, there should be a single option to disable optimizations that are unsafe for the debugger and that would add debugging information (such as what -g does). In short, the user would just have to add this option, which should do all the magic for debugging. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
