From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6679 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2008 14:06:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 6668 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2008 14:05:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:05:40 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A9A9811D; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:05:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2B4980E0; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:05:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JCy2L-0004Gh-Eo; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:05:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: ebotcazou@adacore.com, brobecker@adacore.com, jimb@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? Message-ID: <20080110140537.GB16061@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , ebotcazou@adacore.com, brobecker@adacore.com, jimb@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080109151745.GA13181@adacore.com> <20080109191535.GB19569@caradoc.them.org> <20080109194602.GF21281@adacore.com> <200801092140.43362.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <200801101058.m0AAw7HA023877@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801101058.m0AAw7HA023877@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:58:07AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > 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? It already doesn't do that at -O0. This part of the thread was about not skipping prologues at all; we can't do that even with GCC, because the debug info says arguments live in their stack slots. But they're in different incoming locations until the end of the prologue (registers or other stack slots). I think we'd want debug info which only specified the incoming locations and the local stack slots, not every load into a register - which is probably what GCC tries to produce. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery