On Oct 14, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Tristan" == Tristan Gingold <ging...@adacore.com> writes: > > Tristan> I am not against this patch, my only concern is that there are many > Tristan> many dwarf consumers and I have no idea how they will react to this > Tristan> change. > > I tend to think that this is the wrong standard to apply. In this case > we would be avoiding a beneficial change -- as measured in both > performance in a couple of cases, and in size --
I am not against this patch. I think it would be useful to add an option (-fdwarf-emit-sibling ?) to keep the old behavior. > for the sake of unknown > and possibly nonexistent consumers. I think instead the burden of proof > should be on those consumers, both to give their evidence and reasoning > and to engage with GCC. You know the story here: they don't use the latest gcc version and start to complain years later. > Another way to look at it is that there have been many changes to GCC's > DWARF output in the last few years. Surely these have broken these > DWARF consumers more than this change possibly could. Yes, but there is -gstrict-dwarf to stay compatible with old behavior. Tristan.
