On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:51 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:05 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > Heh, I don't have one - which usually makes me simply inline the
> > beast into the single caller :P
>
> > Maybe simply have_new_ty
On Sep 26, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:05 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Heh, I don't have one - which usually makes me simply inline the
> beast into the single caller :P
> Maybe simply have_new_type_for_decl_with_old_die_p?
> Or new_type_for_die_p?
How about overrid
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:05 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Sep 13, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:32 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Sep 12, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >> > So - maybe we can have the patch a bit cleaner by adding
> >> > a flag to add_type_
On Sep 13, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:32 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > So - maybe we can have the patch a bit cleaner by adding
>> > a flag to add_type_attribute saying we only want it if it's
>> > different from that alre
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:32 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Your new predicate looks a bit excessive here given it builds the type
> > again?
>
> Err, there seems to be some misunderstanding here. The predicate avoids
> outputting a type for the defini
On Sep 12, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> Your new predicate looks a bit excessive here given it builds the type
> again?
Err, there seems to be some misunderstanding here. The predicate avoids
outputting a type for the definition if it's the same DIE that would go
in the specification. Now, wh
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:36 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Is this PR91507?
>
> Looks like it. Interesting, I've had this patch sitting in my tree
> since early June, waiting for the additional verification I completed
> last night. That was long bef
On Sep 12, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> Is this PR91507?
Looks like it. Interesting, I've had this patch sitting in my tree
since early June, waiting for the additional verification I completed
last night. That was long before the PR was filed.
> How do you get around the gdb issue?
I was n
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:24 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> A variable redeclaration or definition that provides additional type
> information for it, e.g. outermost array bounds, is not reflected in
> the debug information for the variable. With this patch, the debug
> info of the variable speci
A variable redeclaration or definition that provides additional type
information for it, e.g. outermost array bounds, is not reflected in
the debug information for the variable. With this patch, the debug
info of the variable specialization gets a type attribute with the
adjusted type.
This patch
10 matches
Mail list logo