public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vittorio.romeo at outlook dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:12:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-96780-4-eiX2SAyHNz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-96780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Romeo <vittorio.romeo at outlook dot com> ---
> As discussed on IRC, we might not want to do this folding at -O0 (although I'd personally be happy with it unconditionally).
I think you should reconsider this as discussed in these places:
- https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53689
- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104719
Compiling in `-O0` is a valid choice when trying to maximize compilation speed
and debuggability, yet pretty much everyone seems to agree that they'd like to
never see `std::move`/`std::forward` in their debugger nor have them introduce
any performance overhead, even in `-O0`.
I would also suggest, as an extension, to consider a more general approach for
other standard library functions. As an example, there are good gains to be
made in terms of debug performance for things like `std::unique_ptr` (see
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53689#issuecomment-1055669228) or
`std::vector<T>::iterator`.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-01 19:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-25 12:08 [Bug c++/96780] New: " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-08-25 12:35 ` [Bug c++/96780] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-12 16:05 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-12 16:09 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-06 13:44 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-03 21:14 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-03 23:17 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-05 13:55 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-05 16:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-01 19:12 ` vittorio.romeo at outlook dot com [this message]
2022-03-01 20:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-03 9:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-09 14:35 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-09 14:35 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-09 15:34 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-09 17:12 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-09 17:20 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-10 4:33 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-16 12:26 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-26 23:37 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-02 14:34 ` moncef.mechri at gmail dot com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-96780-4-eiX2SAyHNz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).