From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14726 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2009 00:00:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 14711 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Oct 2009 00:00:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from one.firstfloor.org (HELO one.firstfloor.org) (213.235.205.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:00:15 +0000 Received: from basil.firstfloor.org (p5B3CB38E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.60.179.142]) by one.firstfloor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421D21EE801A; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 02:00:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: by basil.firstfloor.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1DA10B1757; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 02:00:10 +0200 (CEST) To: Richard Guenther Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Prague GCC folks meeting summary report From: Andi Kleen References: Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Richard Guenther's message of "Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:35:06 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <87d456u0l1.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00029.txt.bz2 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. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.