From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3718 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2012 15:07:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 3627 invoked by uid 48); 6 Dec 2012 15:07:23 -0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/55541] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] unable to see local variables due extra lexical block was generated Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:07:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: debug X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.4 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg00545.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-06 15:07:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > I'm finding the LOCATION_BLOCK code somewhat opaque, and think that I should > take care of more recent regressions before diving into it too much, so I'm > going to put this aside for now. > > I don't remember the rationale for the extra block, but changing > finish_function to strip it right away causes quite a few testsuite > regressions. Can you attach your patch anyway, both for future reference and to find out why it causes testsuite regressions? I'm really curious...