Would you trade 0.1% in performance for a better debugging experience?

[Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 18 November 2014 at 18:55:43 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> Is it fair if I argue that fixing DWARF info generation is a
> better solution then?

I don't know. Probably. Not all tools may read DWARF info. Also, 
I'm not sure if this is related but Phobos/Druntime are currently 
built without -g, although enabling it should be a much less 
controversial change.

> I don't need to open the link to know the code you linked to.
> Ever since I had weird seg faults when an exception was thrown
> from my D callback in Gtk code I wondered when this code will
> be updated. Consider that "no frame pointers" is the default
> for GCC on amd64 and thus practically all libraries on Linux
> can't be stack traced by druntime. It needs to use libunwind
> in the long run when C++ interfacing becomes more viable and D
> programmers start to expect exception handling and stack
> traces to work as per system ABI. At least that's what I
> believe.

That sounds reasonable. I guess it remains to be seen how much we 
can rely on libunwind (with regards to availability, stability 
and compatibility with DMD-emitted DWARF info).