On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 14:05 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2005, at 12:39 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
> >> Would be nice if someone could approve it.
> >
> > It's not in a state that could be approved yet, but hopefully after
> > some
> > cleanup it will be.
>
> Remove the APPLE LOCAL mar
On Jul 13, 2005, at 12:39 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
Would be nice if someone could approve it.
It's not in a state that could be approved yet, but hopefully after
some
cleanup it will be.
Remove the APPLE LOCAL markers, which, is obvious. Anything else?
If not, Ok with that change?
> Would be nice if someone could approve it.
>
It's not in a state that could be approved yet, but hopefully after some
cleanup it will be.
-eric
On Jul 13, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Eric Christopher wrote:
I think it's useful
To put real life numbers on it, for some, it translates into a
savings of around 150 megs worth of debug information, and the time
it takes to compile, assemble and link it. For linking for example,
it can take us
> What do others think about this patch? If people think, it is OK
> to have one additional knob for users then I'll test and submit
> formal patch.
>
> I'll treat silence as, this idea is not OK for FSF GCC. I'd like to
> give Jason and our customers compiler with such fix ASAP. And if
> it is c
On Jul 11, 2005, at 6:18 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:11:58PM -0700, Jason Molenda wrote:
Yeah, Devang didn't present what we're doing here on the debug side
too well. We're giving up a bit of information from within gdb --
it won't know what constructors and destr
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:18:22PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense. Personally, if
> you're going to do this, I don't see why you're keeping debug info for
> methods; either ditch all artificial methods (including defaulted
> constructors but n
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:11:58PM -0700, Jason Molenda wrote:
> Yeah, Devang didn't present what we're doing here on the debug side
> too well. We're giving up a bit of information from within gdb --
> it won't know what constructors and destructors a class has defined
> -- for a large savings in
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:56:36PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > However, it is good enough to have
> >
> > .stabs "Base1:Tt(0,41)=s4x:(0,9),0,32;getx::(0,44)=#(0,41),
> > (0,9),(0,43)=*(0,41),(0,36);:_ZN5Base14getxEv;2A.;;",128,0,1,0
> Eh, no. You have just lost any information
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 05:37:32PM -0700, Devang Patel wrote:
> will emit a class definition LSYM of
>
> .stabs "Base1:Tt(0,41)=s4x:(0,9),0,32;__base_ctor ::(0,42)=#
> (0,41),(0,36),(0,43)=*(0,41),(0,9),(0,36);:_ZN5Base1C2Ei;
> 2A.;__comp_ctor ::(0,42):_ZN5Base1C1Ei;2A.;getx::(0,44)=#(0
10 matches
Mail list logo
