Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Sep 5, 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > Yes, the goal is definitely to avoid the jumping back and forth > on source lines you can see when debugging optimized programs. Hmm... If that's the goal, how about adding to the mix the Statement Frontier Notes proposal I advanced in some GCC Summit?

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:07:17AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > But that's not a problem with inlining, that's a problem with allowing > > things to happen out of order (for some definition of things and > > order) - which in my understanding -Og is going to tie down. > > Yes, the goal is de

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote: > On 5 September 2012 09:55, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Matthew Gretton-Dann > > wrote: > >>> Please, no inlining. Think of stack back-traces and their use > >>> when debugging. > >> > >> I would argue [without suf

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On 5 September 2012 09:55, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Matthew Gretton-Dann > wrote: >>> Please, no inlining. Think of stack back-traces and their use >>> when debugging. >> >> I would argue [without sufficient knowledge of how easy this would >> actually be to do i

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote: >> Please, no inlining. Think of stack back-traces and their use >> when debugging. > > I would argue [without sufficient knowledge of how easy this would > actually be to do in a real compiler :-)] that this is a debugger > problem and

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On 4 September 2012 21:42, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> > >> > This adds a new optimization level, -Og, as previously discussed. >> > It aims at providing fast compilation, a superior debuggi

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Sep 4, 2012, at 22:42 , Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > Please, no inlining. Think of stack back-traces and their use > when debugging. > But, there was a talk at the GNU Tools > Cauldron with related contents - >

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > > This adds a new optimization level, -Og, as previously discussed. > > It aims at providing fast compilation, a superior debugging > > experience and reasonable runtime performance. Inste

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote: > On 4 September 2012 10:45, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, wrote: >>> > "H.J. Lu" wrote: >>> > >>> >>On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Richard Guenther >>> >> wrote

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On 4 September 2012 10:45, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, wrote: >> > "H.J. Lu" wrote: >> > >> >>On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Richard Guenther >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther >> >>wrote

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On 04/09/12 10:45, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, wrote: >>> "H.J. Lu" wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >>

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, wrote: > > "H.J. Lu" wrote: > > > >>On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Richard Guenther > >> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther > >>wrote: > > This adds a new optimization level, -Og, as pr

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, wrote: > "H.J. Lu" wrote: > >>On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther >>wrote: This adds a new optimization level, -Og, as previously discussed. It aims at providing fast com

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

"H.J. Lu" wrote: >On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther >wrote: >>> >>> This adds a new optimization level, -Og, as previously discussed. >>> It aims at providing fast compilation, a superior debugging >>> experience and re

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> This adds a new optimization level, -Og, as previously discussed. >> It aims at providing fast compilation, a superior debugging >> experience and reasonable runtime performanc

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

Hi, On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > > Comments welcome, > > No comments? Then I'll drop this idea for 4.8. Hey, don't discard my face2face comments :) Regarding -Og it's about time, I like it, and your implementation is a start. The pass list (e.g. if to include LIM or not, o

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

Richard Guenther writes: >> >> Comments welcome, > > No comments? Then I'll drop this idea for 4.8. FWIW I liked the idea. But I'm not really competent to review the implementation. On x86 I would enable frame pointers. Even though gdb doesn't need them, some other profiling and debugging tool

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -Og

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > This adds a new optimization level, -Og, as previously discussed. > It aims at providing fast compilation, a superior debugging > experience and reasonable runtime performance. Instead of making > -O1 this optimization level this adds a