This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC PATCH] Avoid most of the BUILT_IN_*_CHKP enum values
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>,Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>,Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>,Ilya Enkovich <ilya dot enkovich at intel dot com>,gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:24:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Avoid most of the BUILT_IN_*_CHKP enum values
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150127142709 dot GF1746 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMbmDYa28X0MSNxYc4wjoz0dBW2B4VwOtoHpz866q9jXC707gg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150127224257 dot GP1746 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc1JYbE6aNxzRTL9gv+krwpPCeT1aee66ewDdzYrDDPzsg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150128112441 dot GS1746 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc2GL6s+=f7f0Ht1CxQUnw+_AXOLtSL8w1BN6AwwHs90qg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGWvny=uSsndn5DKk5eoY2APNj-_Xw7=4tTYzYeOi_b8yS6spQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On January 28, 2015 4:23:05 PM CET, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Richard Biener
><richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
>wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:15:40PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> > Note, patch successfully bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux
>and
>>>> > i686-linux, and David said that on AIX it passed stage1 cc1
>linking.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ok for trunk?
>>>>
>>>> Is the stabs issue meanwhile fixed at least on trunk?
>>>
>>> AFAIK no. The generic stabs code has support for either infinite
>length
>>> records, or records split using continuations (targets can choose
>which
>>> character is continuation character). But AIX doesn't support
>infinite
>>> length records and for some reason doesn't support continuations
>either.
>>>
>>> IMHO it should just enable support for continuations, even if there
>was a
>>> reason not to enable them 15 years ago on AIX, I bet the debuggers
>changed a
>>> little bit even on that platform during that time.
>>>
>>> The other option is to add generic support for just throwing stabs
>records
>>> on the floor if they are too large and target doesn't want to
>support
>>> continuations (would be for AIX only), but in that case the target
>at least
>>> would need to hint what means too large.
>>
>> Yes, dropping them on the floor would be the solution. Not sure what
>STABS
>> defines as maximum record length on AIX.
>>
>> It should be the STABS and/or affected target maintainers job to get
>this fixed
>> for them.
>
>Richard,
>
>Even if the STABS continuations are fixed, it requires fixing it in
>previous releases of GCC, deploying the solution and achieving
>adoption. The current problem prevents linking of stage 1 cc1,
>cc1plus, etc.
I am aware of this. But if GCC 5 were fixed stabs-wise then stage1 could be built with XLC or earlier GCC with -g0, no?
>I am working through the STABS continuation issues on AIX, but it does
>not solve the problem of the GCC 5 release functioning on AIX.
Well, the earlier we fix it the better.
Richard.
>Thanks, David