This is the mail archive of the 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: [Bug debug/13974] [3.4/3.5 regression] bad line marker in debug info

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 11:09:54PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > 
> > ------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-03-11 05:07 -------
> > Jan, please let me know what is going on with this bug.
> Hi,
> I still tend to think in favour of explicitly setting locators for places where
> we know we are splitting single instruction into multiple ones in some way.  It
> seems to me that in most cases optimizers insert new instructions that are not
> explicitly attached to statements assigned to surrounding instrucitons.
> however I am not thrilled about it and the other way around may work well in
> most cases.
> The attached patch fix the testcase by similar way as we fixed reload
> previously.  The other way is to make emit_insn_after behave as
> emit_insn_after_sameloc but I think it is more intrussive.  Sorry for taking my
> time.  The patch has failed for misterous reasons and it took me a while to
> realize that it is the side effect of macro argument being evaulated multiple
> times, so I also moved everything offline.

Could you explain what you mean by 'more intrusive'?  It'd be a much
smaller patch, for sure.

Personally, I'd rather fix everywhere that emits an instruction, using
some other instruction before or after in the instruction stream as an
anchor, that is _not_ associated with that instruction, to specify so
explicitly.  Do you even have an example of this?

Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

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