This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR debug/14114
- From: kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 04 Mar 2004 09:01:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR debug/14114
- Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
- Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org@egil.codesourcery.com200403032033.28001.ebotcazou@libertysurf.> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
email@example.com (Zack Weinberg) wrote on 03.03.04 in <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Eric Botcazou <email@example.com> writes:
> >> I'm with you up to this point ...
> > Great! :-)
> >> > which is then sent twice to the DWARF-2 back-end.
> >> but I don't see why this follows. Can you explain?
> > Sure. The functions are assembled in the order c,a,b so the
> > definition tree of 'c' is sent to the DWARF-2 back-end from 'c'.
> > Then the definition tree of 'c' is resent to the back-end from 'a'
> > when the declaration of 'c' is seen
> I don't see why this happens - you are saying that it is the *same*
> tree that was already sent from the compilation of 'c', so the
> front-end should recognize that it doesn't have to be done again.
Could the second one instead be the one from 'b', that gcc failed to unify
with the other one?