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: glen herrmannsfeldt Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Adding Blank Line In Source Causes Change In Executable Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:26:05 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 23 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <12-03-036@comp.compilers> References: <12-03-007@comp.compilers> <12-03-010@comp.compilers> <12-03-028@comp.compilers> <12-03-031@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: leila.iecc.com 1331777481 99276 64.57.183.58 (15 Mar 2012 02:11:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 02:11:21 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: code, debug Posted-Date: 14 Mar 2012 22:11:21 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:503 Robert A Duff wrote: > 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? All the OS/360 compilers I remember had an option to turn on or off keeping the statement numbers. When memory was small, it might have made a difference. In the case of PL/I on the 360/91, though, when statement numbering was on the compiler generated BR 0 instructions between each statement, which flushes the 360/91 (and any other out-of-order processor) pipeline such that the number would be right. That was the default on the systems I used, too. -- glen