This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: inline functions and local labels
- To: davem at dm dot cobaltmicro dot com
- Subject: Re: inline functions and local labels
- From: Craig Burley <burley at gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:33:49 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com, gcc2 at cygnus dot com, rth at cygnus dot com
- Cc: burley at gnu dot org
>Craig, I apologize, I should have posted the code which behaves
>differently if not inlined (due to kenners patch) so that the behavior
>issue in question is more clear. There is a performance concern, but
>this is secondary compared to the loss in functionality change:
>We use this for debugging, and the debugging information becomes
>useless if the procedure is not inlined.
Ah, I think I get it now.
What you *want* is to "dump" the address of the caller's reference
to the current function, so the ability to quickly localize the
cause of the problem is improved somewhat.
What you're *using* to get this is something different, which sometimes
amounts to the same thing (e.g. when the code is inlined), but
sometimes doesn't (e.g. when it isn't).
A new notation added to gcc might be handy here (a notation that
would basically be of roughly the same class as __PRETTY_FUNCTION__,
though it'd involve lower-level code-gen issues than that).
But it seems to me it'd be more worthwhile to consider implementing
a general way to print a limited stack backtrace, which is an issue
outside the language definition, and would require less cruft in
your code overall.
tq vm, (burley)