This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Put scope blocks on a diet
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Jan Hubicka" <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:19:40 +0200
- Subject: Re: Put scope blocks on a diet
- References: <20070724180235.GM24519@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <orlkcucny9.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <ory7gtbkd9.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20070806201102.GF4460@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <orprzw2kuk.fsf@free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On 10/3/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I would like to test the attached patch. It prevents the removal before
> > inlining so UIDs should remain the same. However I do get massive
> > regressions on bootstrap-debug with or without the block removal code.
> > I will now rebuild and see if the set of failing files changes by
> > disabling block removal, but if you do have some testcases handy, it
> > would help.
>
> > I wonder if we need to keep those at all - dwarf2 already uses abstract
> > origin to avoid need to saveinfo on variables in each copy. We can
> > probably just keep around the dead variables on separate list in their
> > ABSTRACT_ORIGIN -g or not?
>
> This patch of yours (except for the ChangeLog entry) fixes the
> -g-changes-generated-code in the trunk, so this should go in.
>
> However, it breaks the vta branch, because we still keep debug
> annotations for variables in blocks that your patch removes. I
> suppose I could just drop such annotations in the floor for now, but,
> in the long run, should I?
In the long run, we should generate (and output) debug information
for types and declarations early and simply remember the DIE when
refering to it instead of keeping our hands on the types and decls
itself.
Richard.