From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-56933-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17907 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2002 11:24:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 17900 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2002 11:24:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO soliton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2002 11:24:19 -0000
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by soliton.integrable-solutions.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) id g6MBMNe07933;
	Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:22:23 +0200
To: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>, aj@suse.de,
   "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Simplifying TARGET_EXPR
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207221102180.11313-100000@wotan.suse.de>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: Michael Matz's message of "Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:24:39 +0200 (CEST)"
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:02:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m31y9wc8i9.fsf@soliton.integrable-solutions.net>
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg01022.txt.bz2

Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> writes:

| Hi,
| 
| On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Mark Mitchell wrote:
| 
| > > Do you think we should always elide copy-constructors by default,
| > > unless explicitly told the contrary?
| >
| > Yes.
| >
| > Maybe I'm developing an unhealthy paranoia.
| 
| And your coworkers too it seems ;-)

If you have something particular with me, let's take it to private mails.

| First, I think you meant debugging in general, not specifically with gdb,
| didn't you?  Because with -O2 programs are not debuggable easily with gdb,
| even right now,

Not just because it is already uneasy means we should make it more
difficult.

|  so gdb-debugging should not be the reason to not elide
| copy ctors (or more generally debugging with programs interpreting the
| debug info).  Then it can only be a form of printf debugging, or asserts.

Nobody (neither Mark nor me) is proposing not to elide copy
constructors.  On the contrary, we're proposing to always elide them
unless explicitly told otherwise.

-- Gaby