8 GCC regressions, 2 new, with your patch on 2003-04-16T21:21:05Z.
Richard Henderson
rth@redhat.com
Thu Apr 17 18:30:00 GMT 2003
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:54:05PM +0100, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Still, the transformation is safe, and I see nothing fundamentally
> wrong with removing a variable in an optimizing compilation - yes, it makes
> debugging harder, but then so do a lot of optimizations.
The original motivation for the test was a bit more
complicated than that:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-12/msg02450.html
Interestingly, this test continues to pass with dwarf2:
.uleb128 0x4 // (DIE (0x5c) DW_TAG_variable)
data4.ua @secrel(.LASF3) // DW_AT_name: "xyzzy"
data1 0x1 // DW_AT_decl_file
data1 0x9 // DW_AT_decl_line
data4.ua 0x68 // DW_AT_type
Note that there is no DW_AT_location entry, so indeed
this variable has been optimized away, but the lexical
block still exists, which is the real point of the test.
I guess stabs can't represent this. I'd much prefer we
XFAIL these tests in that case rather than remove or
modify the test.
It's also a point that perhaps it would be best to remove
Dale's patch after the new register allocator is enabled
by default -- we'll get better debug information in that case.
r~
More information about the Gcc-regression
mailing list