On Freitag, 15. Februar 2019 19:43:56 CET Konstantin Shegunov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:57 PM Allan Sandfeld Jensen <k...@carewolf.com> > > wrote: > > Btw. If(when) the output isn't debug friendly, it is really a gcc bug > > True, and I (hope) I haven't implied otherwise. > > > should be reported to them if you have the time, and want it to improve in > > the > > future. > > Perhaps, but as is of now (with disabling the optimizations) it works for > me. If I get some time in I'd try to reproduce and report it, although I'm > not completely sure how I should format that report ... maybe I should > provide the assembly alongside the source to serve as an illustration ... > Yes, exactly. They prefer sources and then one or more intermediate formats, in this case I would assume compiling to assembly with the debug information annotated might have all the necessary information (or lack there of). There are various flags to make assembler output more verbose and annotated. Though there is a risk it might not have all the dwarf debug-info or might contain things that later get lost in dwarf encoding, in that case you would have to make do with just the test case in source, and how it fails in debugging.
'Allan _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
