This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Use CHECKSUM_ macros and ULEB128 checksum for DIE tag
- From: Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail dot com>
- To: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at google dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:55:05 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use CHECKSUM_ macros and ULEB128 checksum for DIE tag
- References: <CALehDX6StXmfA4=QD91BE5oE7R135PLDy6gV6CMnnJTA4vkJLA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130722201744 dot GK14138 at laptop dot redhat dot com> <CAHACq4qMhHbDEEp+d1xe63vF7nVsfcSfYpezhJM_hopOu=Vq8g at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Cary Coutant <email@example.com> wrote:
> - md5_process_bytes (&die->die_tag, sizeof (die->die_tag), &ctx);
> - md5_process_bytes (name, strlen (name) + 1, &ctx);
> + /* Checksum the current DIE. */
> + die_odr_checksum(die, &ctx);
> Since we've already gone to the trouble of getting the name of this
> DIE, it seems wasteful to have die_odr_checksum call get_AT_string
> again. Why not just pass name as a parameter?
Was mostly being cute and assuming it'd get removed. I'll just pass
both of them down into the function for now. If we decide later that
we want to change what's hashed we can change the function.
>> I guess you should add a function comment, plus spaces before ( everywhere
>> (and while you're at it, you can change also the is_cxx() ). Will leave the
>> rest to Cary.
> Agree with the function comment and the spaces.
Oh yeah, thanks. Sorry, it's been a while.
>> 2013-07-22 Eric Christopher <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> * dwarf2out.c (die_odr_checksum): New function to use
>> CHECKSUM_ macros and ULEB128 for DIE tag.
>> (generate_type_signature): Use.
> This is OK with those changes. Thanks!
ghostwheel:~/sources/gcc> svn ci
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 201148.