This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
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: <200403030936.27171.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr8765dln4rx.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com200403032033.28001.ebotcazou@libertysurf.> <200403032033.28001.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <87wu61lkwd.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
zack@codesourcery.com (Zack Weinberg) wrote on 03.03.04 in <87wu61lkwd.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>:
> Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> 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'.
>
> Yeah...
>
> > 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?
MfG Kai