From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier 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: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:19:41 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20070306063056.GA21948@debian-testing-hy.localdomain> <86zm6q5upr.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <17902.9556.720278.162036@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1173338410 3503 80.91.229.12 (8 Mar 2007 07:20:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 07:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: nickrob@snap.net.nz, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, hongyi.zhao@gmail.com, handa@m17n.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 08 08:20:02 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 1HPCuv-0001LY-SZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:20:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPCv6-0005M5-IY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:20:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HPCut-0005Kd-DK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:19:59 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HPCur-0005GZ-HA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:19:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPCur-0005GT-DE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:19:57 -0500 Original-Received: from tomts13.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.34] helo=tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HPCuc-00067Y-Su; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:19:43 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([74.12.206.221]) by tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20070308071941.VAQY1593.tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net@pastel.home>; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:19:41 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B036D8E59; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:19:41 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu\, 08 Mar 2007 06\:24\:08 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.93 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Solaris 8 (1) 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:67563 Archived-At: > I couldn't convince GCC developers that debuggability is much more > important in the vast majority of cases than the extra 5%-7% > performance gains one gets by using all the tweaks -O2 does that > defeat debugging. Sigh. I haven't followed any of gcc's development, but I do have to point out that keeping track of source-line numbers through all compilation and optimization phases is tremendously difficult and tiresome, even for relatively simple optimizations. And then designing/understanding/generating/using debug info is itself a challenge. So if you want reliable debuggability, avoid optimizations. Stefan