Re: PATCH: Robustify loc_descriptor_from_tree

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

[...]

| >This is more like Nathan's proposed switch for --disable-asserts, than
| >it is like the existing --disable-checking, IMO.
| >
| I think debug info is in a different category.
| 
| If the user tries to compile with -g, and we do everything just right,
| but can't figure out how to emit debug info for the bounds in a VLA,
| I'd be amazed if most users would want us to crash.  We'll still be

I beg to differ.  If users are using -g, it is because they're
debugging their codes, which supposely contains bug.  It would be a
real DISERVE of us to add more to that already complicated task of
debugging.  

| generating correct (but incomplete) debug information, so it's not
| even like running the debugger should fall over.  We were already
| silently punting for some trees; this just makes us punt for those
| that we don't recognize.
| 
| The difference, in my mind, from Nathan's proposal, is that there's no
| chance of us generating bad code from this patch.  We're just saying
| "gee, we don't know how to do that."  If you really pressed me, I
| might be persuaded that we should issue a warning saying "we're too
| dumb to emit debug-info for X,"

Then consider this message as a press...

-- Gaby