This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFH / Patch] PR 20140

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 03:24:09 +0100
Subject: Re: [RFH / Patch] PR 20140
References: <4F01040A.8050803@oracle.com> <4F010D14.6020304@redhat.com>

On 01/02/2012 02:49 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:

On 01/01/2012 08:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The analysis is confirmed by the fact that the rather heavy handed
patchlet which I'm attaching, which uses copy_node to avoid the
corruption, "works". How do we normally handle this kind of situation?
In most cases, trees are unshared at instantiation time, but that doesn't apply to constants like this. The patch is OK.

Oh I see, thanks. Then I'm going to properly test it, etc, and if everything goes well, I'll post what I will actually commit.

Thanks again,
Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFH / Patch] PR 20140
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- [RFH / Patch] PR 20140
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [RFH / Patch] PR 20140
  - From: Jason Merrill

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]