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: [google] Backport ThreadSanitizer instrumentation pass from google/main to google/gcc-4_6 (issue 5610048)


On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 06:01,  <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:

> Here I create a declaration for a var that is defined in our run-time
> library. If I use some real location, then the declaration will have
> different irrelevant locations in each TU (irrelevant, because it will
> be somewhere near begin of a first instrumented function), + there will
> be the definition with a correct location (inside of our run-time
> library). Does it make sense? The current situation (a lot of
> declarations with unknown location + definition with correct location)
> looks OK IMVHO.

Ah, OK.  In that case, that's fine.

> Does it make sense to set location for all tree's? I can't extract
> location from the sequence, because it's NULL (however, of course, I
> still can pass all the way down).

Just the statements.  I had missed the location setting you do at the
end.  That is fine.


Thanks.  Diego.


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