[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Defending GCC considered futile |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:46:23 +0200 |
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>, address@hidden,
> address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
> address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:14:14 -0500
>
> >> <optimized out>
> > -Og
>
> I use -Og but still regularly see "optimized out".
That's because DWARF cannot express the location. LLDB will hit the
same problems when the LLVM optimiziers start optimizing well enough
to compete with GCC. Back in GCC 2.8 days, I could compile with -O2
and never see any such problems.
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, (continued)
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Daniel Colascione, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, David Kastrup, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, David Kastrup, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Stefan Monnier, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Richard Stallman, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Richard Stallman, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, John Yates, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/11