public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <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: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 17:12:59 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-96780-4-rXannLhdz5@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 #13 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #11) > I'm surprised that adding the "artificial" attribute didn't work; I thought > the main point of that attribute was to automatically skip the function in > the debugger/profiler. I guess that never got implemented in gdb? It seems to work with optimization, but not at -O0: $ gdb -q -ex start -ex step -ex step -ex cont -ex q a.out Reading symbols from a.out... Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x40110e: file move.C, line 16. Starting program: /tmp/a.out Temporary breakpoint 1, main () at move.C:16 16 int i = 0; 17 return std::move(i); std::move<int&> (__t=@0x7fffffffd77c: 0) at move.C:11 11 { return static_cast<typename std::remove_reference<_Tp>::type&&>(__t); } Continuing. [Inferior 1 (process 1629725) exited normally] I think I must have only tested -O0 last time. > But these functions aren't really artificial, just tiny, so using that > attribute seems wrong. I think there's a case to be made for things like std::__addressof and std::__is_constant_evaluated being "artificial" because they are just wrappers around a built-in, and purely impl details. But I agree that std::move and std::forward are not "artificial" in the sense of the DW_AT_artificial tag: https://dwarfstd.org/doc/DWARF5.pdf#page=65
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-09 17:12 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 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 [this message] 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-rXannLhdz5@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: linkBe 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).