[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 Moncef Mechri changed: What|Removed |Added CC||moncef.mechri at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill --- *** Bug 104719 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e55c5e24b97ad8ddc44588da18e894c139e02c0a commit r12-7668-ge55c5e24b97ad8ddc44588da18e894c139e02c0a Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14) From https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/Skipping-Over-Functions-and-Files.html#Skipping-Over-Functions-and-Files it looks like you want skip

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10) > It seems the libstdc++ python hooks could set that up for users with > gdb.execute ("skip std::move")? No, that doesn't work. You need to use 'skip

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #11) > I'm surprised that adding the "artificial" attribute didn't work; I thought > the main point of that attribute was to automatically skip the function in >

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka --- I should mention I noticed a significant reduction in compile time, memory usage and unstripped object file size in some cases with the proposed patch at

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill --- I'm surprised that adding the "artificial" attribute didn't work; I thought the main point of that attribute was to automatically skip the function in the debugger/profiler. I guess that never got

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- As well as folding move and forward, it probably makes sense to do the same for as_const and addressof (and our internal __addressof). addressof is particularly annoying because it's uglier *and* slower

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- But -O0 often compiles slower, because so much more code gets emitted and must be assembled and linked. So -O1 or -Og is often better for all of debugging and compilation speed and runtime performance.

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #7 from Vittorio Romeo --- > As discussed on IRC, we might not want to do this folding at -O0 (although > I'd personally be happy with it unconditionally). I think you should reconsider this as discussed in these places: -

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, from a very quick test, it does exactly what I want. As discussed on IRC, we might not want to do this folding at -O0 (although I'd personally be happy with it unconditionally).

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka --- Created attachment 51732 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51732=edit rough patch that folds calls to std::move/forward Does the attached rough patch help?

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think that would be great.

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka --- I wonder if it would be worthwhile to fold calls to std::move and std::forward altogether in the frontend.

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-08-25