From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-53200-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30124 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2008 11:01:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 30116 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2008 11:01:42 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:01:24 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m0AAw7Za024496; 	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:58:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m0AAw7HA023877; 	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:58:07 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:01:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200801101058.m0AAw7HA023877@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: ebotcazou@adacore.com
CC: brobecker@adacore.com, jimb@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <200801092140.43362.ebotcazou@adacore.com> (message from Eric 	Botcazou on Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:40:43 +0100)
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue?
References: <20080109151745.GA13181@adacore.com> <20080109191535.GB19569@caradoc.them.org> <20080109194602.GF21281@adacore.com> <200801092140.43362.ebotcazou@adacore.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00232.txt.bz2

> From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:40:43 +0100
> 
> > Eric? Can you remind us of what the problems were? I think it was
> > a combination of both...
> 
> Correct.  Bloat + holes in location lists so variables couldn't always be 
> displayed in the debugger, what we deemed unacceptable at -O0.  We have a
> local patch instead to manually emit location notes in a specific case.

If generating the right location information for -O0 is too difficult,
perhaps the compiler should make life easier for itself and disable
scheduling instructions into the prologue?