This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:10:35 -0800
- Subject: Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4733A637.email@example.com> <4737BF2C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4749DE66.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4756B02D.email@example.com>
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:05:33AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> In my simplistic view of this problem, I've always had the idea that -O0
> -g means "full debugging bliss", -O1 -g means "tolerable debugging"
> (symbols shouldn't disappear, for instance, though they do now) and -O2
> -g means "you can probably know what line+function you're executing".
I'd be happy enough if the state of -O1 -g debugging were improved,
perhaps using some of Alexandre's ideas so that it could be "full
debugging bliss" with some optimization as well. Speeding up the
compile/test/debug/modify cycle would result. We could then have fast
but fully debuggable code at -O1, and even faster code at -O2 not
constrained by the requirement of, as Diego says, "deconstructing
arbitrary transformations done by the optimizers".