https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67293
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I'm fine with introducing some limit on the size of const values, with a
> param.
> As for the other question, I think you've answered that yourself,
> if the co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67293
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm fine with introducing some limit on the size of const values, with a param.
As for the other question, I think you've answered that yourself,
if the const ends up in the source, then that is supposedly be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67293
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The difference is of course when not optimized out but using only(?)
DW_AT_const_value you can't refer to &a in the debugger:
(gdb) p &a
Can't take address of "a" which isn't an lvalue.
