From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-39577-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19490 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2011 16:17:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 19482 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2011 16:17:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:17:00 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LP100E00X5C7B00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:16:58 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.48.51]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LP100EDVX884W50@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:16:58 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:17:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: py-breakpoint.c fails to compile with MinGW GCC
In-reply-to: <m34o2676m8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83livie5x7.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <E1QmPMV-0007CR-Tf@fencepost.gnu.org> <m3vcumzc9x.fsf@redhat.com> <m3hb6678l0.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20110728151915.GU1988@adacore.com> <m34o2676m8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Cc: pmuldoon@redhat.com, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, gdb@sourceware.org
> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:43:59 -0600
> 
> Or, just require people to use a newer GCC; 3.4 is 5 years old at
> this point.

Just to clarify: I never upgraded my GCC because the existing 4.x
series (a) produce code that is less debug-friendly under any non-zero
optimization level, (b) some versions are buggy (e.g., 4.5), and
(c) is slower.  Paying compilation time penalty without any visible
gains seemed unwise, especially since my main development machine runs
on 6-year-old hardware.

I will probably upgrade when 4.7 is released, because I understand it
will be more debug-friendly.