From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Mitchell To: wilson@cygnus.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Bootstrap failure of gcc-ss-20010409 in ia64 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:38:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010417153759J.mitchell@codesourcery.com> References: <200104171801.LAA14512@wilson.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00810.html >>>>> "Jim" == Jim Wilson writes: Jim> How about hacking the gcc3 branch and leaving the trunk Jim> broken? That way we have a chance of getting the trunk fixed If you like; that's OK with me. Jim> correctly in the long term. It would be a shame to Jim> deliberately modify the trunk to emit incorrect debug info. Well, sort-of. We're talking about a case where optimization is involved, and as laudable a goal as making debugging work well with optimizatio is, it's unattainable, in general. The debugger can't really be expected to print out information about the values of variables that were optimized away, for example. The solution you proposed (replicating the BLOCK tree) might be expensive, and I'm not convinced that's worth the trouble. It would be better if the optimizers did not mess up the tree structure; they are supposed to be working on RTL, not trees. Perhaps the RTL could contain the declarations explicitly (via a NOTE_DECL_START_SCOPE NOTE_DECL_END_SCOPE or some such); that would make it easier to keep things in a consistent state. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com