This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: [PATCH, TREE_LIST removal] remove calls to build_constructor_from_list from coverage.c
- From: Nathan Froyd <froydnj at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:49:01 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, TREE_LIST removal] remove calls to build_constructor_from_list from coverage.c
- References: <20100511171921.GJ5834@codesourcery.com> <20100512153357.GQ5834@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTilPxdNReEkW2FjIKyU9NJ-il5yBYMRqj69tdHzg@mail.gmail.com> <20100513035912.GW5834@codesourcery.com> <m3iq6rygva.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20100513155400.GA5834@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTimiPo52jV-LDXUroDX65WtLy4Apd_kvlsfxpSum@mail.gmail.com> <20100514024622.GF5834@codesourcery.com>
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 07:46:24PM -0700, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:13:29AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > >> So I think another approach would be to change START_RECORD_CONSTRUCTOR
> > >> to simply initialize the VEC, then modify PUSH_FIELD_VALUE, PUSH_SUPER_VALUE,
> > >> and FINISH_RECORD_CONSTRUCTOR to do the right thing -- in particular,
> > >> delaying the build_constructor call to FINISH_RECORD_CONSTRUCTOR.
> >
> > I think Tom's suggestion is better.
>
> I tried this; the patch is below (along with a few cleanups along the
> way). Clearing TREE_CONSTANT in FINISH_RECORD_CONSTRUCTOR is still
> required to make things go.
I've committed the patch, based on Richi's IRC approval.
-Nathan