--- Comment #10 from jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com 2010-05-24 19:49
---
GDB counterpart (no patch now):
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11631
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44113
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-21 13:00 ---
I think it would be better first to change gdb to handle this and then gcc
start emitting it. For testing, one can ammend gcc generated assembly with a
couple of extra .loc directives.
--
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 14:52 ---
The problem is just that there are no instructions with locus on line 4 - with
unrolling no traces of the for loop in the assembly remains and all
instructions in the body have line 5 and immediately after it another
--- Comment #6 from andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2010-05-19 15:40 ---
Jakub, are you saying this should be fixed in gdb?
How could gdb detect this case?
If gcc emitted another .loc like you said couldn't gdb check for this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44113
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 15:45 ---
I guess that needs discussion with the GDB folks...
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 18:08 ---
It seems to me that a series of line notes for each copy of line 5 are the
right debug output, and if GCC can generate that, someone should hack up GDB
until it recognizes that and treats it sensibly.
--
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 15:36 ---
Well, you step to the next line-number and only lines #5 are remaining, so
I think you just get what you asked for. I don't know if we could (or should)
signal to gdb that there are multiple lines #5 now. Jakub?
--- Comment #3 from andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2010-05-13 16:16 ---
I think it should describe multiple lines.
next is expected to iterate through loops, not skip them.
If I wanted to skip I would use until
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44113
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 17:13 ---
Confirmed. Though with the 4.5.0 and above we do have a debug_stmt with the
correct line info at the tree level ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
