From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup 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: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:59:38 +0100 Message-ID: <85veh7o305.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <20070306063056.GA21948@debian-testing-hy.localdomain> <86zm6q5upr.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <17902.9556.720278.162036@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <85bqizpiu6.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1173650410 9635 80.91.229.12 (11 Mar 2007 22:00:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:00:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 11 23:00:04 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 1HQW5E-0004Sp-7j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:00:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQW5o-0004c3-EH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:00:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HQW5Z-0004YK-Vc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:00:26 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HQW5X-0004Qw-A8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:00:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQW5X-0004Qp-6X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:00:23 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-in-01.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HQW4s-0007Ba-LS; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:59:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-03-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-03-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.15]) by mail-in-01.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55915106CC1; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:59:41 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail-in-12.arcor-online.net (mail-in-12.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.52]) by mail-in-03-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3911F2D3851; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:59:41 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-021-177.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.21.177]) by mail-in-12.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0103E8C465; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:59:40 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id C4B6E1C4F93F; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:59:38 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun\, 11 Mar 2007 23\:56\:11 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:67748 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org >> From: David Kastrup >> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:32:17 +0100 >> >> > I disagree. -O1 selects optimizations based on how expensive they are >> > at compile time, not on how badly they disrupt debugging. Many >> > optimizations that are part of -O2 do no harm at all to debugging, so >> > there's no reason to give them up. >> >> Well, how about explicitly disabling a few debugging-unfriendly >> options when we are compiling with -g? > > We've been through that in this thread: Miles suggested that a day or > two ago. To which I replied that the GCC documentation doesn't give > you any useful information about which options to turn off to get a > reasonably debuggable program. So because we can't expect to get perfection with 100% certainty, we should do nothing at all? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum