[Bug debug/105108] incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

2022-03-31 Thread assaiante at diag dot uniroma1.it via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 --- Comment #9 from Cristian Assaiante --- Created attachment 52728 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52728=edit Executable file at -Og with l_144 = 8

[Bug debug/105108] incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

2022-03-31 Thread assaiante at diag dot uniroma1.it via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 --- Comment #8 from Cristian Assaiante --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > And I certainly can't reproduce the wrong-debug issue you're talking about. > If I change it to char l_144 = 8; > then optimized dump has: >[local

[Bug debug/105108] incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

2022-03-31 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- There can be security concerns with that though if just print variable in a debugger lets you format your disk etc. though, while DWARF expressions can do a lot, they can't modify registers or memory of the

[Bug debug/105108] incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

2022-03-31 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note, for computations expressible in DWARF expressions DWARF already has DW_OP_call* which doesn't actually mean a call in the inferior call sense, but a call in the DWARF expression evaluation sense, so

[Bug debug/105108] incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

2022-03-31 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug debug/105108] incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

2022-03-31 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Yeah, there is nothing we can do in the debug info about this. > We really can't inline just for the purposes of debug stmts or something > similar. > Another

[Bug debug/105108] incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

2022-03-31 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- And I certainly can't reproduce the wrong-debug issue you're talking about. If I change it to char l_144 = 8; then optimized dump has: [local count: 1073741824]: # DEBUG BEGIN_STMT # DEBUG l_144 => 8

[Bug debug/105108] incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

2022-03-31 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug debug/105108] incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

2022-03-31 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED