Re: [PATCH][RFC] Gimplify unit-at-a-time (again)

[Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Jason Merrill wrote:

> On 07/06/2009 03:27 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > FAIL: g++.dg/warn/unused-result1.C  (test for warnings, line 9)
> 
> Hmm, I guess we don't get the warning because that function isn't reachable?
> Should be fine to just add a call to the testcase, I suppose.

The test was added specifically for the case where there was no call to
the inline function IIRC.  And yes, we drop the function before we
get to the warning machinery - in the end moving it to work on GENERIC
rather than GIMPLE would fix the issue.

> > FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/block-1.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/block-2.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/block-3.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.dg/gomp/block-5.C (test for excess errors)
> 
> These are just changes in error messages, but the old messages were clearer.

The old messages are still there, we just get additional ones from
the gimple pass which is now run even though the function had errors
before (we happen to have two places that emit the same diagnostics for
slightly different cases).

> > FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.jason/report.C (test for excess errors)
> > Excess errors:
> > /space/rguenther/trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.jason/report.C:65:54:
> > warning: control reaches end of non-void function
> > /space/rguenther/trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.jason/report.C:36:1:
> > warning: control reaches end of non-void function
> 
> These are spurious warnings; both of these functions end with return
> statements, they just happen to be ill-formed return statements.

Right.  The frontend hands us return <error_mark_node>; which the
gimplifier drops on the floor.  Later diagnostic that now still runs
even after the function has errors emits the warning for this reason.

For these kind of things I don't know what is best - maybe keeping
a error/sorrycount per function would work.  But I'm not teribly
concerned by these warnings-after-errors (at least I didn't want to
make this patch even larger).

> > +       /* ???  From C++ generated thunks we get parms replaced by wrongly
> > +          typed constants.  */
> 
> Is that from mapping null_pointer_node into the vtt parm for clones? Does
> doing the conversion in maybe_clone_body do the trick?

I'll check.

> > !   walk_tree (&stmts, copy_tree_body_r,&id, NULL);
> > !   append_to_statement_list_force (stmts,&DECL_SAVED_TREE (clone));
> 
> Missing spaces after commas.

Fixed.

Thanks,
Richard.