Prague GCC folks meeting summary report

Joe Buck Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM
Fri Oct 2 00:21:00 GMT 2009

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:00:10PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Richard Guenther <> writes:
> >
> > The wish for more granular and thus smaller debug information (things like
> > -gfunction-arguments which would properly show parameter values
> > for backtraces) was brought up.  We agree that this should be addressed at a
> > tools level, like in strip, not in the compiler.
> Is that really the right level? In my experience (very roughly) -g can turn gcc from
> CPU bound to IO bound (especially considering distributed compiling appraches),
> and dropping unnecessary information in external tools would make the IO penalty even
> worse.

Certainly life can suck when building large C++ apps with -g in an NFS
environment.  Assuming we can generate tons of stuff and strip it later
might not be best.

More information about the Gcc mailing list