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: [PATCH] PR63300 'const volatile' sometimes stripped in debug info.

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:12:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR63300 'const volatile' sometimes stripped in debug info.
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <1411249535-2193-1-git-send-email-mjw at redhat dot com> <87oau8kp39 dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com> <87k34uleew dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com>

On 09/23/2014 08:17 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:

Without such handling there
are cases where more DIEs than necessary are created, e.g. if we have
the following types:

some_base_t *const
some_base_t *volatile restrict
some_base_t *const volatile restrict

Then the latter is based on the first instead of the second, although
this requires one more DIE.

I think the consistency may be important for sharing across translationunits with type units. If one TU bases cv on const and another onvolatile, will the type signatures of a class that uses the cv variantmatch?


Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] PR63300 'const volatile' sometimes stripped in debug info.
  - From: Mark Wielaard

References:
- [PATCH] PR63300 'const volatile' sometimes stripped in debug info.
  - From: Mark Wielaard
- Re: [PATCH] PR63300 'const volatile' sometimes stripped in debug info.
  - From: Andreas Arnez
- Re: [PATCH] PR63300 'const volatile' sometimes stripped in debug info.
  - From: Andreas Arnez

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