From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18350 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2015 20:44:39 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 18336 invoked by uid 89); 27 Apr 2015 20:44:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:44:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3RKiZgM011321 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:44:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-19.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.19]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3RKiXI9032421; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:44:34 -0400 Message-ID: <553E9FB0.8050005@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 21:49:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil , Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] compile: set debug compile: Display GCC driver filename References: <20150423203402.23140.92757.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <553E5646.8020708@redhat.com> <20150427164757.GA10548@host1.jankratochvil.net> <553E6F92.4020204@redhat.com> <20150427175213.GA12596@host1.jankratochvil.net> <553E85BA.8020107@redhat.com> <20150427203618.GA20234@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20150427203618.GA20234@host1.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01021.txt.bz2 On 27/04/15 21:36, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:53:46 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> "wrong" is subjective. This split is a conscious design decision, >> that has advantages like insulating the debugger from compiler ICEs. > > I haven't looked it up now but IIRC that is not a "conscious design decision" > but just a workaround of buggy GCC which cannot recover/re-run from > compilation errors in the same instance. The ICE resistance was only > a side-effect. > It's not buggy. We are pushing GCC in new ways. It's a side effect of change. GCC was designed, and has only run, AFAIK, in this way with the recent changes of libcc1. The state of GCC has never needed to be preserved and/or reset (say with GDB and cleanups) as if it encountered a problem it just exited. Change is good. But this is not the GCC list. And we probably should not further exhaust GDB'ers patience with GCC internals. If a plan is set, then lets just go with it and see if it works? Otherwise we can just explore until one works ;) Cheers Phil