This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Re: scheduling vs lexical scopes
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 14:43:21 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: scheduling vs lexical scopes
- References: <20011227151618.A31660@redhat.com> <wvlwuz757xw.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com> <20011228151529.A10303@redhat.com> <20011229144512.C4087@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20011229220058.G7122@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20011229171507.C27457@redhat.com> <20011230125154.B22734@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20011230071327.G4087@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20011230153709.A3734@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020102105419.A4087@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 03:37:09PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 12:51:54PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > > > (but it will cause many fragments to be created)
> > > > >
> > > > > I do worry about this, particularly for non-dwarf3 debug targets.
> > > > > Not sure what to do about it though.
> > > > I was thinking about prunning the regions a bit - recognizing instrucitons
> > > > not interesting for symbolic level debugger (those that do not trap nor
> > > > access memory nor are just after line number note) and do not create
> > > > fragments for these. I guess on riscy machines this should help a bit
> > > > as typical reg-reg operation fits this category.
> > >
> > > Is reading memory interesting to symbolic level debugger?
> >
> > I guess it can have watchpoint on it assuming that the memory is something
> > accessible from symbolic level (de-facto all memory?)
> >
> > > On the other side, changing a /v pseudo definitely is interesting.
> >
> > Can symbolic debugger stop somehow on such instruction? Can I have
> > watchpoint on register?
>
> Sure, e.g. using next or step. I doubt you can have watchpoint on a
Step will bring me to the next line number note.
I am not sure if we need to have everything consistent in the next - stepping
trought uncompletted statement looks like something where I would not
require all variables to make 100% sense.
Honza
> register, but that doesn't matter.
>
> Jakub