https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Guinevere Larsen from comment #9)
> I'm confused because, according to the DWARF spec:
>
> [is_stmt indicates] that the current instruction is a recommended breakpoint
> location. A recommende
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
--- Comment #9 from Guinevere Larsen ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Guinevere Larsen from comment #7)
> > I understand that you could have multiple lines related to a single
> > instruction (even if I disagree it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Guinevere Larsen from comment #7)
> I understand that you could have multiple lines related to a single
> instruction (even if I disagree it should happen at -Og). My question is,
> why is it ok
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
--- Comment #7 from Guinevere Larsen ---
I understand that you could have multiple lines related to a single instruction
(even if I disagree it should happen at -Og). My question is, why is it ok for
an entry to have is_stmt and !is_stmt for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Guinevere Larsen from comment #4)
> Could you explain why having a single instruction be a statement and not a
> statement at once is expected?
Because that is expected with optimizations. It c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
--- Comment #4 from Guinevere Larsen ---
Could you explain why having a single instruction be a statement and not a
statement at once is expected?
Or is that why you marked this bug as a duplicate of 95574?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
x86_64:
```
_ZN7MyClass4callEv:
.LVL0:
.LFB1:
.file 1 "/app/example.cpp"
.loc 1 7 22 view -0
.cfi_startproc
.loc 1 8 5 view .LVU1
.loc 1 8 23 is_stmt 0 view .LVU2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115943
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note gcc outputs .line directives usually so this could also be a binutils
issue.
10 matches
Mail list logo
