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: Patch ping


On 03/03/2016 07:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!

I'd like to ping fix for P1 PR69947:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01743.html
So essentially this is just marking more things so that we don't prune them away, right?

It's similar conceptually to one of Pierre-Marie's patches where he removed the switch and recursed anytime the operand's val_class matched dw_val_class_die_ref and was !external. Yours just explicitly adds the new DW_OP_ things to the switch and has a slightly looser check (dropping the !external part of the check).

I could argue for either approach. Yours AFAICT is safer in that it won't recurse on unexpected DW_OP_<whatever> things. Of course, it may require more long term maintenance to keep the list of things to recurse on up-to-date.

Either approach is OK with me, given you're a lot more familiar with our dwarf writer than I, I'll go with your judgment on which is the best approach to address the problem.

jeff


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