Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:34:30 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Lines: 24 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <12-03-031@comp.compilers> References: <12-03-007@comp.compilers> <12-03-010@comp.compilers> <12-03-028@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: leila.iecc.com 1331699337 49094 64.57.183.58 (14 Mar 2012 04:28:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: debug, code Posted-Date: 14 Mar 2012 00:28:57 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:498 HOKIENERD writes: > It absolutely is the line number. (Thanks for the tip.) You're welcome. >... I hope to get > to the assembly code before too long. I sure wish I could keep the > check, but lose the line number! Why? I understand why one wants identical source code to produce identical object files, and identical executable files. (I don't like object file formats that include things like time-of-compilation!) But if you add blank lines, the source is no longer identical. Surely that line number is useful, if the check ever fails. There's an option to gnatmake that causes it to not recompile things if the changes were trivial (e.g. whitespace and comment changes), but then the debugging information will be slightly off. - Bob