This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Designs for better debug info in GCC


On Nov 24, 2007 4:00 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2007, "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And it has to handle this new case everywhere.
>
> I've already explained why this isn't true.  It's not even close to
> being true.  In fact, I've chosen this representation *precisely*
> because I reasoned it would lead to the least global impact.  Of
> course you can refuse to believe that and point at the changes I had
> to make as alleged counter-proof, failing to notice how many other
> locations I haven't had to change and that just work because adjusting
> other instructions after transformations is precisely what all
> transformation passes already do.

It also makes some things easier - for example during inlining of a function
body we re-map all DECLs in the inlined copy.  With an on-the-side
representation you have to ensure to make the same mapping explicitly,
with DEBUG_INSNs the mapping is automatically done during the copying
of the IL.  A similar problem with using SSA_NAME definition points to
store information is using the renamer to rename a variable that already
has SSA_NAMES (which is IMHO bogus, as we do not detect the errorneous
case of overlapping life-ranges - but ignore that for now) - in this case you
need some magic to transfer the on-the-side debug information from the
old SSA_NAMEs to the new ones (where possible).

Just to mention a few problems we are running into ;)

Richard.


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