This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix free_lang_data on asm stmts (PR lto/91572)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 18:28:31 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix free_lang_data on asm stmts (PR lto/91572)
- References: <20190831063003.GE2120@tucnak> <6DE9EA1F-FDC4-4ADB-B3FB-213E2AD0D184@suse.de> <20190901115514.GI2120@tucnak> <58A31C6E-354F-4D7A-82D3-8165B50BBBE9@gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 02:30:12PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On September 1, 2019 1:55:14 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 03:02:18PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Ok, but I wonder if we can stream the constraint strings in a simpler
> >way - surely the type doesn't really matter?
> >> Why are they not identifier nodes?
> >
> >I guess they have type because they are parsed like any other string
> >literals during parsing and once we parse them that way, it isn't worth
> >changing them to something else like an identifier.
>
> Hmm, so we accept wide-char literals as well here?
>
> >Would it be enough to just clear their type during free lang data or
> >something similar?
>
> I guess so. Maybe do that during gimplification already? Wonder how we
> pretty print asms then when we mangle their types. Note the original
> patch is OK as-is I just wondered why we bother to even keep the asm
> constrains as something different than a char *.
The type was actually const char *, which was the problem on the testcase,
as nothing in the testcase required otherwise const char, so we made it
its own distinct type and then were unhappy that a streamed type was handled
that way.
Jakub