Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC

2007-12-21 Thread Chris Lattner
On Dec 21, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On 12/21/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 21 Dec 2007 16:02:38 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Like it or not, the large size of debug information is a serious issue for many people. Link times are hurt b

Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC

2007-12-21 Thread Robert Dewar
Alexandre Oliva wrote: I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I don't understand why you and so many others apply different compliance standards to debug information. Why do you regard compiler output that causes systems to fail because they process incorrect debug information as any more accept

Re: __builtin_expect for indirect function calls

2007-12-21 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When we can't hint the real target, we want to hint the most common > target. There are potentially clever ways for the compiler to do this > automatically, but I'm most interested in giving the user some way to do > it explicitly. One possiblity i

Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC

2007-12-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
On 12/21/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21 Dec 2007 16:02:38 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Like it or not, the large size of debug information is a serious issue > > for many people. > > Link times are hurt by large size of debugging information. I have

Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC

2007-12-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
On 21 Dec 2007 16:02:38 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Like it or not, the large size of debug information is a serious issue > for many people. Link times are hurt by large size of debugging information. I have many many complaints from some users of the PS3 toolchain that

Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC

2007-12-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Alexandre, I have to say that in my opinion absurd arguments like this > > do not strengthen your position. > > I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I don't understand why you and > so many others apply different compliance standards to debug > inf

gcc-4.3-20071221 is now available

2007-12-21 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20071221 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20071221/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC

2007-12-21 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 21, 2007, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Dec 21, 2007, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Why would code, essential for debug information consumers that are >> >> part of larger systems to work correctly, de

Re: A proposal to align GCC stack

2007-12-21 Thread Christian Schüler
Ye, Joey intel.com> writes: > Please go forward with this idea! The current implementation of force_align_arg_pointer has never worked for me. I have a DLL which may be called by code out of my control and I already have manual stub functions to align the stack. I would love to rely on compile

Re: -Wparentheses lumps too much together

2007-12-21 Thread Ross Smith
Paul Brook wrote: >James K. Lowden wrote: 1) most combinations of && and || don't need parentheses because (a && b) || (c && d) is by far more common than a && (b || c) && d and, moreover, broken code fails at runtime, and I dispute these claims. The former may be statisti

Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC

2007-12-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Dec 21, 2007, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Why would code, essential for debug information consumers that are > >> part of larger systems to work correctly, deserve any less attention > >> to correctness? > > > Because for mo

Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC

2007-12-21 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 21, 2007, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why would code, essential for debug information consumers that are >> part of larger systems to work correctly, deserve any less attention >> to correctness? > Because for most people the use of debug information is to use it in a >

sub-optimal stack alignment with __builtin_alloca()

2007-12-21 Thread Alexandre Oliva
WRT http://gbenson.livejournal.com/2007/12/21/ I see where the problem is. GCC is being overzealous because of a default that was local to one file was made global on 2003-10-07, and this changed the behavior of the #if statement in explow.c's allocate_dynamic_stack_space(): #if defined (STACK_D

Re: -Wparentheses lumps too much together

2007-12-21 Thread NightStrike
On 12/20/07, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > freetds.org> writes: > > > > Yes, I know beginners get confused by and/or precedence. But > > *every* language that I know of that has operator precedence places > > 'and' before 'or'. > > FWIW, Bourne shell doesn't, && and || have equal

Re: -Wparentheses lumps too much together

2007-12-21 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
freetds.org> writes: > > Yes, I know beginners get confused by and/or precedence. But > *every* language that I know of that has operator precedence places > 'and' before 'or'. FWIW, Bourne shell doesn't, && and || have equal precedence there. That's a bit off-topic though, as it's not an argu