On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 09/30/14 03:23, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm rearranging some code in Michael's original patch to minimize the >>> difference with mainline. >>> >>> It seems that the check for DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (decl)->gimple_df, was >>> merely a check to see if we had already set the FDE bits for the decl in >>> question. >> >> >> Sounds more like a check whether the frontend is finished? > > > Is that the canonical way for checking the FE is finished? Seems kinda odd. > I'd prefer to check for ->fde, since this is the actual reason the rest of > dwarf generation will not work in this case. > > Either way, I'm not terribly attached to this particular part of the patch. > If you'd rather me use ->gimple_df, I can use it. It just doesn't seem very > readable.
No, checking ->gimple_df would be odd indeed. The check seems to be coming from Michas patch-set? Richard. > Aldy
