Rob Quill wrote:
OK, that sounds good to me. As you say, there is no way to know until
it is actually implemented how muh affect it will have. However, I
won't be able to start on it until summer as I have to worry about
sitting my finals, so I'll let you know when I get started.
I would say t
On 06/04/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> So the general concensus is that's it's not worth doing?
> Hypothetically, if I did it and it didn't make much difference, would
> it be worth submitting a patch? Or should I just give up
Joe Buck wrote:
It might be worth doing. I think that, in addition to a patch,
I'd like to see measurements (maybe just the size increase in
libstdc++.{a,so}). If the cost is small, I will not object.
If the cost turns out non-small, this could be enabled at -g3?
Cheers,
Pedro Alves
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> So the general concensus is that's it's not worth doing?
> Hypothetically, if I did it and it didn't make much difference, would
> it be worth submitting a patch? Or should I just give up before I
> start?
It might be worth doing. I thi
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:50:01AM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> >int i = 0;
> >int j = 2;
> >int n = CalculateSomething( j, &i );
> >int k = 3;
>
> I don't really understand, because the problem remains that if you
> break before int n... and do print n you get a value, whereas you
> should get an er
> On 05/04/07, Brian Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Now if there were actual function calls in the initialization, and no
> > records were emitted, I would consider that to be a problem (haven't tested
> > this at the moment though), however, static initializers like that could
> > eas
lopment
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2007 12:32:04 PM
Subject: Re: Variable scope debug info
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:37:06PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code:
>
> int i = 0;
> int j = 2;
> int k = 3;
>
> If I set a br
So the general concensus is that's it's not worth doing?
Hypothetically, if I did it and it didn't make much difference, would
it be worth submitting a patch? Or should I just give up before I
start?
Rob
On 06/04/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:46:18A
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:46:18AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> Now, it might turn out that adding additional dwarf records for
> every single declaration won't significantly increase the size
> of the debug information. But it is a consideration.
FWIW, I would expect that it would not make a signifi
On Apr 5, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
The test/debug/recompile loop I spend much of my life in lately is
dominated by link time.
We found that omitting the debug information from the link step
solves this issue.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:21:28AM -0700, Brian Ellis wrote:
> Now if there were actual function calls in the initialization, and no
> records were emitted, I would consider that to be a problem (haven't
> tested this at the moment though), however, static initializers like
> that could easily be
ll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: GCC Development
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2007 12:32:04 PM
Subject: Re: Variable scope debug info
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:37:06PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code:
>
> int i = 0;
> int j = 2;
&g
I wrote:
> >If adding scope attributes every time more than one variable is declared
> >adds to the already immense bulk of C++ debugging information, I'd
> >prefer to live with the bug myself.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:36:57PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> Out of interest, why? I haven't looked int
On 05/04/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:37:06PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code:
>
> int i = 0;
> int j = 2;
> int k = 3;
>
> If I set a breakpoint at the 3rd line, before int k = 3; has been
> execut
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:37:06PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code:
>
> int i = 0;
> int j = 2;
> int k = 3;
>
> If I set a breakpoint at the 3rd line, before int k = 3; has been
> executed, and check if k is in scope, I find that it is
"Rob Quill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code:
>
> int i = 0;
> int j = 2;
> int k = 3;
>
> If I set a breakpoint at the 3rd line, before int k = 3; has been
> executed, and check if k is in scope, I find that it is, when, of
> cours
16 matches
Mail list logo
