This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: VTA merge?
On Jun 18, 2009, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 17:03, Alexandre Oliva<aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> For the measurements, I won't use the last merge, but rather the trunk
> Comparing trunk as of the last merge point is the easiest thing to do
> (just checkout trunk at the revision that you last merged with the
> branch).
There had been too much debug-info-related patching after the previous
merge on both sides, and tracking them all down would have been a pain.
So I ran another merge.
> painful in one dimension or another. Hopefully this will be easier to
> deal with than the current -O2 -g disaster.
+1
>> When in the documentation do you suggest this should go?
> A new chapter in gccint.texi should be fine, I think. It doesn't have
> to start long, but we may add to it as time goes on.
Heh, I asked *when*, not *where*! Doh. Sorry, I hope it wasn't too
confusing.
>> That said, the additional work would be explicitly optional, and
>> certainly not necessarily taken up by the maintainer of the pass, but
>> rather by someone interested in debug information.
> I like it. This is a good property. In general, folks interested in
> optimization are reluctant to care about debugging too much. If we
> can cater to both camps, we all win.
+1
That was a factor I took very much into consideration in the design.
I'm happy this is becoming clearer now that the smoke is vanishing ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer