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: [C++ patch] Avoid re-synthetizing methods

From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 00:03:05 +0200
Subject: Re: [C++ patch] Avoid re-synthetizing methods
References: <20030907000503.GF12333@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1062962724.11339.376.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> <20030907205949.GK12333@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1062970315.11339.400.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com>

> > I found the unprotected call be insinde synthetize_method itself.  Again I
> > don't see quite why DECL_INITIAL is not set for the clone when the clone is
> > supposed to be inicialized but the attached patch fixes the crash at least.
> 
> It fixes the crash, but not the real bug.
> 
> You need to answer the question you've implied -- how is it that the
> main function got its DECL_INITIAL set but the clone did not?

OK, it is the case where synthetize_method is called, it produces body,
does expansion of it and during testing function inlinability it calls
instantiate_decl that in turn calls mark_used on different clone of very
same function that ends up calling synthetize_method again as that clone
has not been initialized yet... Funny.

Honza
> 
> -- 
> Mark Mitchell
> CodeSourcery, LLC
> mark@codesourcery.com

References:
- [C++ patch] Avoid re-synthetizing methods
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: [C++ patch] Avoid re-synthetizing methods
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [C++ patch] Avoid re-synthetizing methods
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: [C++ patch] Avoid re-synthetizing methods
  - From: Mark Mitchell

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