From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26202 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2004 21:09:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26194 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2004 21:09:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO burundai.radix50.net) (82.83.211.58) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Jul 2004 21:09:05 -0000 Received: from burundai.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by burundai.radix50.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id i6QLBUof002421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:11:30 +0200 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by burundai.radix50.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) id i6QLBUke002420 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:11:30 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:13:00 -0000 From: Baurjan Ismagulov To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: bug disappears if compiled with -O0 Message-ID: <20040726211129.GC2028@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040725223832.GB8947@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <41047629.nailSP1ZPLRF@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41047629.nailSP1ZPLRF@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00329.txt.bz2 Hello Michael and Eli, On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:10:33PM -0400, Michael Chastain wrote: > gdb can debug code generated with gcc -g -O2. However, when debugging > optimized code, things like "next" appear to skip around, and variables > sometimes don't contain the values that you think that they should. This was the very reason why I wanted to use -O0 :) . > You didn't mention what language your library is written in. C++. > If the bug truly is a code generation bug, then you will need to read > assembly language to isolate the bug. I will as soon as I'm able to locate it. Could it be anything other than an optimization bug? The problem is reported also for gcc 2.95.4 on stable. With kind regards, Baurjan.