This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Bug debug/13974] [3.4/3.5 regression] bad line marker in debug info
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Cc: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:29:30 -0500
- Subject: Re: [Bug debug/13974] [3.4/3.5 regression] bad line marker in debug info
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040313220954.GV6995@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
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.
> 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?
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer