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] PR 66149 & PR78235 dbxout_type_fields


On 12/01/2016 11:41 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2016 09:15 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:

A number of the "variant" testcases fail to build on AIX and targets
that use stabs.  The failure looks like:

/tmp/GCC/powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0/libstdc++-v3/include/variant:956:
internal compiler error: tree check: expected field_decl, have
template_decl in int_bit_position, at tree.h:5396

which occurs in dbxout_type_fields()

  /* Output the name, type, position (in bits), size (in bits) of each
     field that we can support.  */
  for (tem = TYPE_FIELDS (type); tem; tem = DECL_CHAIN (tem))
     ...
          if (VAR_P (tem))
            {
             ...
             }
          else
            {
              stabstr_C (',');
              stabstr_D (int_bit_position (tem));
              stabstr_C (',');
              stabstr_D (tree_to_uhwi (DECL_SIZE (tem)));
              stabstr_C (';');
            }

where tem is a TEMPLATE_DECL.  The dbxout code currently skips
TYPE_DECL, nameless fields, and CONST_DECL.

dbxout_type_methods() explicitly skips TEMPLATE_DECLs with the comment
"The debugger doesn't know what to do with such entities anyhow", so
this proposed patch skips them in dbxout_type_fields() as well.

Okay?

Thanks, David


PR debug/66419
PR c++/78235
* dbxout.c (dbxout_type_fields): Skip TEMPLATE_DECLs.

From the looks of things, it appears we skip them in the dwarf2 code as
well.  But I don't think we can use TEMPLATE_DECL here as that's defined by
the C++ front end.

TEMPLATE_DECL is defined in cp/cp-tree.def, which is included in
all-tree.def, which is included in tree-core.h, which is included in
tree.h, which is included in dbxout.c.

It also is referenced in common code in gcc/tree.c.
In that case, do ahead with checking TEMPLATE_DECL.



I think instead if you test something like:
  (int)TREE_CODE (decl) > NUM_TREE_CODES

You'll filter out any _DECL nodes coming out of the front-ends.

No other DECLs seem to escape.
Good :-)

jeff


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