From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15529 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 12:52:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15515 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 12:52:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO motgate3.mot.com) (144.189.100.103) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 May 2003 12:52:40 -0000 Received: from az33exr04.mot.com (az33exr04.mot.com [10.64.251.234]) by motgate3.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate3) with ESMTP id h46Cq3G7026952; Tue, 6 May 2003 05:52:03 -0700 (MST) Received: from postal.somerset.sps.mot.com (postal.somerset.sps.mot.com [163.12.132.5]) by az33exr04.mot.com (Motorola/az33exr04) with ESMTP id h46Cq05i015179; Tue, 6 May 2003 07:52:01 -0500 Received: from lee.somerset.sps.mot.com (lee.somerset.sps.mot.com [163.12.81.15]) by postal.somerset.sps.mot.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h46Cq0J20094; Tue, 6 May 2003 07:52:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from robertso@localhost) by lee.somerset.sps.mot.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h46Cpxi09797; Tue, 6 May 2003 07:52:00 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 12:52:00 -0000 From: Jim Robertson To: "D.Venkatasubramanian, Noida" Cc: Huaxia Zhao , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Why GCC/ GDB ignore a normal C statement? Message-ID: <20030506125159.GB9470@somerset.sps.mot.com> References: <20030505113250.55949.qmail@web20709.mail.yahoo.com> <1052211765.4348.39.camel@albatross> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1052211765.4348.39.camel@albatross> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:32:40PM +0530, D.Venkatasubramanian, Noida wrote: > Hi, > > Did you use some optimization during compilation. If yes, then that > could be the problem. Optimization should be used only for the final > release. This is a common mistake made by new users. This may be getting (a little) off topic, but I disagree with the above. Only turning on optimizations for a "final release" can have unexpected consequences. Optimizations have a way of uncovering bugs that go undetected in non-optimized code. At a minimum, testing should be done with optimizations. Preferably, all development is done with optimizations. Jim -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim.Robertson@Motorola.com