https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #15 from Alex Mohr ---
Thank you Richard B, Richard G, Xi, Jonathan, Jakub, and Eric for all the great
info. Much appreciated.
With more experience using '-Og -fno-inline' I've found that sometimes
inspecting local variables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023, amohr at amohr dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
>
> --- Comment #10 from Alex Mohr ---
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> > I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Alex Mohr from comment #10)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> > I believe the only real issue is imprecise documentation: "It is a better
> > choice than -O0" has some caveats and it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #10 from Alex Mohr ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> I believe the only real issue is imprecise documentation: "It is a better
> choice than -O0" has some caveats and it's not always true.
Is there a way to explicitly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Alex Mohr from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > A 4x slowdown isn't really acceptable IMHO. At that point, why not just use
> > -O0 instead?
>
> I've been using -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #8 from Alex Mohr ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> A 4x slowdown isn't really acceptable IMHO. At that point, why not just use
> -O0 instead?
I've been using -O0 for years. I was trying to move to -Og because of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> it shouldn't make much difference when single-stepping
> statements since the debugger should enter inlined bodies the same as
> not inlined bodies?
'step'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
A 4x slowdown isn't really acceptable IMHO. At that point, why not just use -O0
instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The problem is that -Og aimed at solving two problems that are often in
conflict with each other - improving the debugging experience _and_ runtime
performance.
For the second goal it started as -O1 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
--- Comment #2 from Alex Mohr ---
Thanks much for looking at this, Richard.
I definitely understand what you're driving at with regard to stepping into
lots of C++ abstraction stuff. But I think it gets blurry trying to
distinguish what's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111243
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |13.2.1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
15 matches
Mail list logo
