I agree. I don't get it. It seems no one has actually tried it. What I'm asking is what's the idiomatic approach to debugging this. If I code in Nim and produce C code and then compile and link that... I'm debugging produced C code, which is below Nim in the chain. I have to somehow then see what's up with exact Nim code that produced said C code which got compiled and linked. It's two steps remove with a magic, unexplained, step between Nim and C which I'm asking about how to debug.

Javascript targetting languages have source maps to link back errors at the lower level back to the pre-compiled source. Clojure dealt with the dual nature of errors (clojure exception from java exception) by partitioning messages in sub-groups to facilitates reading.

That's the answer I was looking for. I was unaware of that. I presume Nim provides something like that as well?

Nim can add #line directives into the generated C source code which map back to the Nim code. GDB can use this information.

I don't know, I only compiled nim once last year to see what kind of C code would show up. I ran away because there was a lot of expansion.

That happens a lot on HN and it is frustrating. It's clear that people have just the barest of experiences with a topic and then speak with authority, to the detriment of others. I try not to comment on things I don't know about and if I do, then I make it clear that I am extrapolating and don't try to come off like an expert because I can google a topic.

I submit to useless comments too, but not when there's already 7 times the same snub one in a row already.