On 5/18/12, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > So, I would like to figure out what to do with this. We have > a usability problem wrt deubgging that I would like to fix. > The only way we have of using all the tree accessor macros from > GDB is to convert the checks into functions (converting the actual > accessor macros would also work, but that's a different story). > > Now that we have the ability to skip functions in gdb, making tree > checking into functions should not be a problem. Additionally, we > can make gdb skip other common functions (like tree_code_length). > > We can do this in trunk today using a variant of Lawrence's original > patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01649.html). This > uses no C++ features, though it weakens type checking by removing away > constness.
The difference between then and now is that we now have the gdb skip command, which fixes the problem of introducing another step point into debugging code using the macros. > In the cxx-conversion branch, we can use overloads, which will > DTRT with const. > > My question is, what do folks prefer? > > a) The trunk patch today, using no C++ features. > b) Wait for the cxx-conversion variant? > > Incidentally, making these expression statements into out-of-line > functions saves about 3% in the final binary size, but increases > compile time by about 10% (tested on several large .o files in > bld/gcc), so we likely want to keep them as inline functions. With the inline functions, if the compiler is doing no inlining, we should still get near to that 3% reduction in binary size. -- Lawrence Crowl
