From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-397381-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 118644 invoked by alias); 9 May 2015 12:41:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 118635 invoked by uid 89); 9 May 2015 12:41:58 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mga09.intel.com
Received: from mga09.intel.com (HELO mga09.intel.com) (134.134.136.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 May 2015 12:41:56 +0000
Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27])  by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2015 05:41:54 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
Received: from tassilo.jf.intel.com (HELO tassilo.localdomain) ([10.7.201.42])  by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2015 05:41:54 -0700
Received: by tassilo.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000)	id 9BF55301B53; Sat,  9 May 2015 05:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Evgeniya Maenkova <evgeniya.maenkova@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,  gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: conditional lim
References: <CANVW7MPfRvpNjABKuqup9GxbUk7A=BaRqwsPcbP8DRpGoGMWdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 12:41:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <CANVW7MPfRvpNjABKuqup9GxbUk7A=BaRqwsPcbP8DRpGoGMWdw@mail.gmail.com>	(Evgeniya Maenkova's message of "Sat, 9 May 2015 01:07:40 +0400")
Message-ID: <87egmp6hyl.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00819.txt.bz2

Evgeniya Maenkova <evgeniya.maenkova@gmail.com> writes:
>
> So, in my opinion it=E2=80=99s ok to generate additional phi node for deb=
ug
> case. But I=E2=80=99m not a compiler expert and maybe there is some
> requirement that debug and non-debug versions should differ only by
> debug statements, I don=E2=80=99t know.

gcc has such a requirement.

Otherwise you cannot debug code that was originally not compiled
with debugging.

-Andi

--=20
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only