This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574 (PING)
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Dodji Seketeli" <dodji at redhat dot com>
- Cc: jh at suse dot cz, "Gcc Patch List" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Jan Hubicka" <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:42:18 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574 (PING)
- References: <48C056E3.1020305@redhat.com> <48DD597D.6090705@redhat.com> <20080926215724.GB746@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <48E24B64.3060608@redhat.com> <48EA68F0.60905@redhat.com> <48EA92AA.6080105@redhat.com> <48EDAD24.2020004@redhat.com> <490EDFBF.1000206@redhat.com> <84fc9c000811030436v17525197xbf01dbb69c356ca9@mail.gmail.com> <490F024A.40101@redhat.com>
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com> wrote:
> Richard Guenther a écrit :
>>
>> Hm. What is the effect on text size for C++ applications?
>
> Well, I don't have any hard figures for that, but I suspect that as the only
> the bodies of abstract functions which clones are reachable (and thus which
> bodies are emitted) are now being added, the text size might grow only very
> slightly.
>
> In any case, I am rebuilding/installing a gcc tree here so that I can
> compile some c++ programs of mine to come up with some data.
>
>> We do not need the function text itself but only its debug information -
>> the debug
>> information for the decl, not the text, correct?
>
> I think for a function decl, we "only" need DECL_ARGUMENTS (decl) and
> DECL_INITIAL (decl) to be present so that we can generate debug info.
So the only problem is the following line
DECL_INITIAL (node->decl) = error_mark_node;
in cgraph_release_function_body? Does it fix the PR
if you make that conditional on DECL_ABSTRACT?
Thanks,
Richard.