This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [Gdb-discuss] Re: x86 Q: why aren't the SSE intrinsics always_inline?
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Fred Fish <fnf at specifixinc dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:17:38 -0400
- Subject: Re: [Gdb-discuss] Re: x86 Q: why aren't the SSE intrinsics always_inline?
- References: <96B69900-04F0-406A-9B53-F74B6D2B8071@apple.com> <17070.41423.645043.983123@zapata.pink> <20050614145552.GA3952@nevyn.them.org> <200506142112.39968.fnf@specifixinc.com>
[Redirecting off gdb-discuss again]
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:12:39PM -0400, Fred Fish wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 June 2005 10:55, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > better support for inline functions, which is already on the gdb
> > roadmap
>
> Where's the roadmap? I'm just starting to look at this very issue
> and would be good to know what is planned or in progress.
I was being figurative :-) We already know we need to do it.
I already have a 30% or so hack which handles creating inline function
frames. It works well enough for simple backtraces. But the symbol
table side of it is all rotten, so it's not very useful - segfaults a
lot.
I also have the first 20% or so of setting breakpoints on multiple
locations implemented, which is a necessary partner to that. But
that's even less finished.
Ask me if you want either set of code. The latest version of the
latter is in the gdb-patches archive from early this year. I don't
think I ever posted the former - too gross.
If you want to work on anything without duplicating effort, it behooves
_you_ to discuss it on the mailing lists first.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC