This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574 (PING)
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Dodji Seketeli" <dodji at redhat dot com>
- Cc: jh at suse dot cz, "Gcc Patch List" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Jan Hubicka" <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:42:18 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR c++/27574 (PING)
- References: <48C056E3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <48DD597D.email@example.com> <20080926215724.GB746@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <48E24B64.firstname.lastname@example.org> <48EA68F0.email@example.com> <48EA92AA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <48EDAD24.email@example.com> <490EDFBF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <490F024A.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Dodji Seketeli <email@example.com> wrote:
> Richard Guenther a écrit :
>> Hm. What is the effect on text size for C++ applications?
> Well, I don't have any hard figures for that, but I suspect that as the only
> the bodies of abstract functions which clones are reachable (and thus which
> bodies are emitted) are now being added, the text size might grow only very
> In any case, I am rebuilding/installing a gcc tree here so that I can
> compile some c++ programs of mine to come up with some data.
>> We do not need the function text itself but only its debug information -
>> the debug
>> information for the decl, not the text, correct?
> I think for a function decl, we "only" need DECL_ARGUMENTS (decl) and
> DECL_INITIAL (decl) to be present so that we can generate debug info.
So the only problem is the following line
DECL_INITIAL (node->decl) = error_mark_node;
in cgraph_release_function_body? Does it fix the PR
if you make that conditional on DECL_ABSTRACT?