[Thus spake Jason Thorpe ("JT: ") 10:33am...]

JT: On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Greywolf wrote:
JT:
JT: > Hm, no frame on the call stack =? inability to tell what went wrong
JT: > without compiling with
JT: > full debugging enabled?  That's what it seems to imply.
JT:
JT: Nonsense.  Disassemble it.

Wow.  I mean...wow.

I just really cannot believe that you just said that at all, let alone
like that.

There are a few people who are less than proficient with hand-disassembly,
hence their need to use a _-=>DEBUGGER<=-_, which is supposed to aid in
this task.

For every gratuitous "optimization" done without request by the compiler,
that is one less easily traversable step in debugging something that goes
wrong, because the compiler inlines it.

Great for executable finished product, hell in a handbasket for
troubleshooting.

				--*greywolf;
--