http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4149



--- Comment #14 from Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com> 
2012-02-01 02:22:04 PST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> It's unrelated to pull 526 which fixed #4180.

I'm talking about the comment 2 by Brad:

> Depends on if gc implies c, c++, or 'as much as is supported in the built-in
> debug format without extension'. 
> 
> I'd argue for the last definition.  Given that dwarf supports it without
> extension, I'd argue that it should use it.  I'd argue that -g should be
> built-in + d extensions.

Walter expressed he agree with this comment in comment 3.

AFAIK this pull request works for -g instead of -gc, even when it uses standard
DWARF features, which goes against that comment.

In the bug 3389 that you just closed, Robert Clipsham makes what for me is a
good point:

> -g not working is how it's meant to be, at least until gdb adds support for 
> the
> D extensions to DWARF. I've hopefully fixed the remaining bugs with -gc (on
> linux at least). My solution to this would be to add in a -gd, and make -g an
> alias to -gc until better support for debug info is added to debuggers. This
> way users get working debug output with -g, and don't blame it on a buggy dmd
> :)

At least this will be more familiar with people used to GCC command line
arguments (which is probably 100% of the *nix world), where -g is the default
for debug and you have, for example -ggdb for GDB extensions.

AFAIK there is no clear direction about this. But maybe is a topic for another
bug report, I think I'll reopen bug 3389 because the root issue in that bug is
what's being discussed here.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to