This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: [lno] fix division by zero



On Jan 4, 2004, at 12:15 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:


Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes:

Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com> writes:

On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 10:53, Daniel Berlin wrote:

Yeah, i'm considering adding TDF_debug to go along with TDF_details and
TDF_stats


But why? TDF_details already means "every stinking detail". Unless we
want to have degrees of detail which I'm not sure is worth it.

Ok, I'll use TDF_DETAILS - and we can always change it later-on if needed...

After looking further into all this and noticing that all the debug information is using fprintf (stderr,...) etc., I fear this would involve changing everything to output debug information to the dump file and I'm not willing to do this without further discussion.

If we want an option TDF_DEBUG to do this, I can do that complete
change - but otherwise I suggest that somebody else makes just the
small changes so that only the relevant information is printed out
(instead of to stderr) instead of a complete switch-over.

Andreas

Debugging information isn't really a "detail". It's things that developers want to see, but users generally don't. I expect TDF_details to tell me *why* things happened. Like why we didn't vectorize something. I expect TDF_stats to tell me how much of something we did. Debugging information doesn't really fit into either category. Thus, my TDF_debug suggestion.





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