From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: [22.1.90]: Point before start of properties Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:13 -0500 Message-ID: References: <6EE216E1AA959543A555C60FF34FB76702E48034@maileube01.misys.global.ad> <87wspcj0ou.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <6EE216E1AA959543A555C60FF34FB76702EED4A1@maileube01.misys.global.ad> <6EE216E1AA959543A555C60FF34FB76702EEDA6E@maileube01.misys.global.ad> <6EE216E1AA959543A555C60FF34FB7670300E86B@maileube01.misys.global.ad> <6EE216E1AA959543A555C60FF34FB7670305B82C@maileube01.misys.global.ad> <6EE216E1AA959543A555C60FF34FB7670305BF82@maileube01.misys.global.ad> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1203955008 13906 80.91.229.12 (25 Feb 2008 15:56:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 25 16:57:04 2008 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 1JTfgx-00014I-0V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:56:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTfgR-00021H-CV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:56:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTfgJ-0001xs-AO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:55 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTfgI-0001vl-9U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:54 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTfgH-0001v6-9l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:53 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JTfgG-0003Iu-Qv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JTfgG-0003Uv-Gt for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JTfgD-0003Hj-Er for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:52 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JTfg9-0003GV-Iu; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:45 -0500 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (vpn-132-204-232-165.acd.umontreal.ca [132.204.232.165]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m1PFtqTE021443; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:52 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 031D5B40C5; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:13 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:57:16 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered BAYES_00=-2.5, HAS_X_HELO=0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: 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:90406 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:21295 Archived-At: > Yes, I need all the extra performance I can get, since the fact that > "-O2" gives code that cannot be debugged reliably means that I have to > ship software compiled with "-O1" (because I'm unwilling to ship code > I didn't test, and I don't want to test code I cannot debug). > I suggest you make a specific proposal and send it to the GCC > discussion list. The option could be called -Odebug, but the real > issue is to decide which optimizations to include. Maybe a better approach would be a "-really-g" that would disable all problematic optimizations. So it can be combined with -O9 or some such super-expensive optimization (expensive but whose result is not hard to describe to GDB). Stefan