From: jklowden@speakeasy.net   
      
   On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:11:31 -0700 (PDT)   
   Edward Rosten  wrote:   
      
   > > Now, suppose you could trap SIGSEGV and walk the stack in your   
   > > program, using standard functions to identify each object by name   
   > > and type.   
   >   
   > That would severely hobble the optimizer.   
   ....   
   > Once a modern optimizer has got its hands on your code, and has done   
   > passes of strip mining, loop unswitching, CSE elimination, value   
   > propagation, inlining, scalar replacement and so on, the resulting   
   > machine code often bears surprisingly little resemblance to the   
   > original code.   
   ....   
   > But the result is that not only might the objects not actually exist   
   > in memory, but the position in the code might not even correspond to a   
   > line in the program in any meaningful manner.   
      
   Well, it wouldn't really hobble the optimizer, would it?  The report   
   might be misleading in some circumstances, nothing we don't deal with   
   already.  There's still a call stack, even if some functions are   
   inlined.   
      
   --jkl   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)