From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: My Emacs unicode 2 crash again when I do some *Replace String (M-%)*, I give the debug informations under gdb in the attachments. Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:26:25 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20070306063056.GA21948@debian-testing-hy.localdomain> <86zm6q5upr.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <17902.9556.720278.162036@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1173475946 18742 80.91.229.12 (9 Mar 2007 21:32:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: miles.bader@necel.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 09 22:32:22 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HPmhI-0007o9-Jz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:32:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPmhc-0008Il-1S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:32:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HPme0-0004jo-11 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:28:56 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HPmdz-0004iN-6k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:28:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPmdy-0004hx-HM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:28:54 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HPmdb-0000db-3C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:28:31 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HPmbZ-0000Vw-0D; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:26:25 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:08:16 +0200) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:67654 Archived-At: I don't think that debugging with any specific optimizations is any harder than it ever was. What has perhaps changed is that GCC does additional optimizations, some of which can confuse debugging in additional ways. The situation is not black and white. With some cooperation, I'm positive we could have had an option that enables only those optimizations which do not severely hamper debugging. That might be a useful feature. If someone wants to prepare an argument for it, and send it in to gcc@gnu.org cc'ing me, I could support it. (I suggest showing me a draft to review before you sent it.)