Re: [PATCH] DWARF array bounds missing from C++ array definitions

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva at adacore dot com>]

On Sep 12, 2019, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:

> Your new predicate looks a bit excessive here given it builds the type
> again?

Err, there seems to be some misunderstanding here.  The predicate avoids
outputting a type for the definition if it's the same DIE that would go
in the specification.  Now, when it's a different DIE, sometimes it
might still refer to the same type, as in array-2.C, but I think that's
not just acceptable, it's desirable, for it reflects the different ways
used to denote the same type.

Before posting the patch, I added an inform() to the case in which
completing_type_p would return true (bringing about a debug info
change), and reviewed all of the messages in a bootstrap.  The only ones
that weren't just adding array element count were those that inspired
array-2.C and array-3.C.

> So I'm obviously fine with your patch and I guess if we independently
> arrive at this solution that answers my question what "correct DWARF"
> is by a majority decision ;)

Good.  Once we clear up the misunderstanding (I'm not sure whether you
misunderstood the patch, or I misunderstood your response), I'll be glad
to put it in.

> So - maybe we can have the patch a bit cleaner by adding
> a flag to add_type_attribute saying we only want it if it's
> different from that already present (on the specification DIE)?

That's exactly what I meant completing_type_p to check.  Do you mean it
should be stricter, do it more cheaply, or what?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter  he/him   https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free!       FSF.org & FSF Latin America board member
GNU Toolchain Engineer                        Free Software Evangelist
Hay que enGNUrecerse, pero sin perder la terGNUra jamás - Che GNUevara