From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id AD3C0385840C; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 15:39:36 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AD3C0385840C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1677857976; bh=bs4ZeW0au9JemPQbKbImG79BvWftSZKq350oFpnYA7A=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=x9wrMGJfuMUWsKwIERxYqPwgYrb3Jhm6Vnsf3KnX4KEBwZo24P+DKu/eFJ5kyLM60 2/pwzwDdXD7qg3ToEqHB5LZOBTDJ6KrGvYUXY7zU+h2GjWuBgcBWZ4hZLvwXmYJ/H3 4pwAMmK7dDjAVFW1pOEfi/V4gfVawkSkf1zyGC5k= From: "mark at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/108996] Proposal for adding DWARF call site information in GCC with -O0 Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 15:39:36 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: debug X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: mark at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108996 --- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > So, I wonder if we just shouldn't ask for a DWARF 6 extension here, have > some way for the compiler to specify DW_AT_location for the return value. There is https://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=3D221105.1 "Add a mechani= sm for specifying subprogram return value locations"=