OK.
Jason
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:32:03PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > So Jakub says that using comp_unit_die () for the context of the stub
>> > DIE is wrong and he is of course right. The foll
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:32:03PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > So Jakub says that using comp_unit_die () for the context of the stub
> > DIE is wrong and he is of course right. The following adjusted patch
> > uses the correct context, but only if
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:32:03PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> So Jakub says that using comp_unit_die () for the context of the stub
> DIE is wrong and he is of course right. The following adjusted patch
> uses the correct context, but only if we already have a DIE for it,
> otherwise we drop t
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> For PR65549 the issue is that the force_decl_die DW_TAG_GNU_call_site
> resolve_addr does can end up creating DIEs for types we won't emit
> (it re-populates the limbo DIE list for the testcase). For the
> particular testcase this happens because th
For PR65549 the issue is that the force_decl_die DW_TAG_GNU_call_site
resolve_addr does can end up creating DIEs for types we won't emit
(it re-populates the limbo DIE list for the testcase). For the
particular testcase this happens because the context of the function
called (a lambda type) wasn'
