From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2147 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2011 17:07:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 2133 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2011 17:07:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:06:48 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LP100800Z2F1Z00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:06:46 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.48.51]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LP1007B2ZJ8UO50@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:06:46 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:07:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: py-breakpoint.c fails to compile with MinGW GCC In-reply-to: To: Tom Tromey Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83ipqme3m7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20110728151915.GU1988@adacore.com> <83livie5x7.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00119.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org > Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:46:13 -0600 > > Eli> I will probably upgrade when 4.7 is released, because I understand it > Eli> will be more debug-friendly. > > Is there something specific in 4.7 you are waiting for? 4.6 is probably > good enough -- it has the biggest improvement (VTA -- first in 4.5) plus > a few more -- but I don't know of anything so major that would advise > skipping 4.6. I somehow thought VTA will be only in 4.7, thanks for getting me straight. However, the MinGW site doesn't have 4.6 available yet, so in practice I still need to wait. > In practice I build gdb with -O0 when I want to debug. I'm forced to do the same, but I hate that. End users will use -O2 (because that's how the Makefile's are set by default), so I'm testing code that is different from what will run out there. > Occasionally I just rebuild a single .o this way. That only helps if that object file has all the story for you. It doesn't help with backtraces that cross object file boundaries, for example. > but when debugging I care about 100% visibility into the source and > nearly zero about performance. Of course. But some problems are only present in optimized code, as we all well know.