From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16326 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2009 00:21:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 16315 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Oct 2009 00:21:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from us02smtp2.synopsys.com (HELO alvesta.synopsys.com) (198.182.60.77) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:21:14 +0000 Received: from crone.synopsys.com (crone.synopsys.com [146.225.7.23]) by alvesta.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EA3B5502; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crone.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26419; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id n920L7I3015504; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:21:07 -0700 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by venkatar-opt-lnx.internal.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id n920KwH3015479; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:20:58 -0700 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:21:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Andi Kleen Cc: Richard Guenther , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Prague GCC folks meeting summary report Message-ID: <20091002002057.GC13104@synopsys.com> References: <87d456u0l1.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d456u0l1.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00031.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:00:10PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > > > > The wish for more granular and thus smaller debug information (things like > > -gfunction-arguments which would properly show parameter values > > for backtraces) was brought up. We agree that this should be addressed at a > > tools level, like in strip, not in the compiler. > > Is that really the right level? In my experience (very roughly) -g can turn gcc from > CPU bound to IO bound (especially considering distributed compiling appraches), > and dropping unnecessary information in external tools would make the IO penalty even > worse. Certainly life can suck when building large C++ apps with -g in an NFS environment. Assuming we can generate tons of stuff and strip it later might not be best.