This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Update source location for PRE inserted stmt


> No, there is nothing natural (and this can even be wrong).  The statements
> must have the source location corresponding to the source construct they are
> generated for, which may be totally different from that of the insertion
> point.  Yes, that can generate jumpiness in GDB, but this is far better that
> breaking the coverage info by giving the same source location to instructions
> that have different coverage status.

For the unittest I provided, setting the inserted stmt with
UNKNOWN_LOCATION will:

* break the coverage
* increase jumpiness in gdb

Setting location to UNKNOWN_LOCATION is like setting it to random
because compiler may put this stmt as the entry point of a BB (as in
the unittest). Thus setting deterministic locations for inserted stmt
will improve debugability and reduce jumpiness.

Thanks,
Dehao

>
> --
> Eric Botcazou


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]