This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa, RFC] SSA_NAMES and overload of chain field
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:12:51 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa, RFC] SSA_NAMES and overload of chain field
- References: <20031128224306.GO1906@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> the chain filed is special because GGC is aware of fact that the chain
> is used as linked list:
> union lang_tree_node
> GTY((desc ("TREE_CODE (&%h.generic) == IDENTIFIER_NODE"),
> chain_next ("TREE_CODE (&%h.generic) == INTEGER_TYPE ? (union lang_tree_node *)TYPE_NEXT_VARIANT (&%h.generic) : (union lang_tree_node *)TREE_CHAIN (&%h.generic)")))
> The use of the field in SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT breaks this expectation and
> confuses GGC when multiple SSA_NAMES point to same DEF_STMT.
> The attached patch fixes it by avoiding the overload of chain and ading
> separate field for this, but I am open for further suggestions.
> Bootstrapped/regtested i686-pc-gnu-linux in isolation
> and additionally x86_64-linux in combination with two patches sent
Just to make sure nothing bad happens, have you tried all these patches
together with GCAC checking on?