This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: stabilize .gcc_except_table with or without -g
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dj at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:19:48 -0800
- Subject: Re: stabilize .gcc_except_table with or without -g
- References: <or3avl2m8a.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I haven't completed bootstrap-testing of this patch yet, but it has
> shaved off more than half of the remaining compare-debug differences
> between libjava compiled with -fvar-tracking-assignments enabled or
> disabled on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
> Ok to install if it passes bootstrap? Should new the compare function
> be moved into libiberty proper? Does the assertion check seem safe in
> the context of this use, that when pointers differ then the strings
> they point to must differ as well? It's not necessary, but I thought
> it would be nice to make sure we weren't goofing with identical symbol
> names at different locations before. I could be easily convinced to
> take it out, though.
Thanks for working on this issue.
+/* Compare C strings used as keys in a splay tree, optimizing the case
+ in which the pointers are identical. We need to use string rather
+ than pointer comparison in order to make Java exception action
+ records stable in the presence of different debug info options. */
I think a lot of this comment is unhelpful. I would say:
/* Comparison function for a splay tree in which the keys are strings.
K1 and K2 have the dynamic type "const char *". Returns <0, 0,
or >0 to indicate whether K1 is less than, equal to, or greater
than K2, respectively. */
The optimization isn't important to a reader trying to understand the
function is for. The Java comment is confusing, in that it might lead
you to think that without Java we don't need to do this -- but, quite
probably, we do. In the body of the function, you could write:
/* We use strcmp, rather than just comparing pointers, so that the
sort order will not depend on the host system. */
If you leave the assertion in, you definitely should comment:
/* The strings are always those from IDENTIFIER_NODEs, and, therefore,
we should never have two copies of the same string. */
The patch is OK with those changes. If DJ prefers to put this function
in libiberty, that's fine; if you check it into GCC first, consider a
patch to adjust GCC to call into libiberty pre-approved.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713