On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 3:14 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/21/21 11:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> > which previously affected debug_nonbind_markers_p. I think it makes
> > sense to move
> > the above to finish_options as well. I suppose -help doesn't correctly dump
> > the -g enabled state for
nFrom da24e51c8e108373256f1106fe4478b919189c99 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:57:18 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] options: Fix variable tracking option processing.
PR debug/102585
PR bootstrap/102766
gcc/ChangeLog:
* opts.c (finish_options): Process flag_var_tracking* options
here as the
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:51 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/19/21 12:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Meh ... :/
> >
> > Well, move the target override hook call down (try to shuffle things
> > so diagnostics happen after but
> > "inits" happen before).
>
> Not so easy. There are direct usages of
;s because it depends on 'optimize' and that would trigger:
'global_options are modified in local context' verification error.
What do you think about the patch?
Cheers,
MartinFrom 1fbeeb6bb326c6e9e704be7a99b69014b1104fda Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:34 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/19/21 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:22 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> All right, and there's second part that moves the code
> >> from toplev.c to opts.c (finish_options) as I've done in the original
>
On 10/19/21 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:22 PM Martin Liška wrote:
All right, and there's second part that moves the code
from toplev.c to opts.c (finish_options) as I've done in the original version.
The patch also handles PR102766 where nvptx.c target sets:
debug_n
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:22 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> All right, and there's second part that moves the code
> from toplev.c to opts.c (finish_options) as I've done in the original version.
>
> The patch also handles PR102766 where nvptx.c target sets:
> debug_nonbind_markers_p = 0;
>
> So the e
00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:57:18 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] options: Fix variable tracking option processing.
PR debug/102585
PR bootstrap/102766
gcc/ChangeLog:
* opts.c (finish_options): Process flag_var_tracking* options
here as they can be adjusted by optimize attribu
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 1:10 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/13/21 15:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 3:12 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/13/21 14:50, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> It does, yes. But that's a ^ with flag_var_tracking_assignments_toggle;)
> >>>
> >>> I
On 10/13/21 15:29, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 3:12 PM Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/13/21 14:50, Richard Biener wrote:
It does, yes. But that's a ^ with flag_var_tracking_assignments_toggle;)
It's also one of the more weird flags, so it could be applied after the
otherwise si
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 3:12 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/13/21 14:50, Richard Biener wrote:
> > It does, yes. But that's a ^ with flag_var_tracking_assignments_toggle;)
> >
> > It's also one of the more weird flags, so it could be applied after the
> > otherwise single set of flag_var_tracki
On 10/13/21 14:50, Richard Biener wrote:
It does, yes. But that's a ^ with flag_var_tracking_assignments_toggle;)
It's also one of the more weird flags, so it could be applied after the
otherwise single set of flag_var_tracking_assignments ...
Well, it's far from being simple.
Can we please m
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 1:59 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/13/21 10:47, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Let's split this;) The debug_inline_points part is OK.
>
> Fine.
>
> >
> > How can debug_variable_location_views be ever -1? But the
> > debug_variable_location_views part looks OK as well.
>
>
On 10/13/21 10:47, Richard Biener wrote:
Let's split this;) The debug_inline_points part is OK.
Fine.
How can debug_variable_location_views be ever -1? But the
debug_variable_location_views part looks OK as well.
It comes from here:
gvariable-location-views=incompat5
Common Driver Rejec
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:21 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/11/21 15:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Btw, I'd be more comfortable when the move of the code would be
> > independent of the adjustment to not rely on AUTODETECT_VALUE.
> > Can we do the latter change first (IIRC the former one failed
On 10/11/21 15:45, Richard Biener wrote:
Btw, I'd be more comfortable when the move of the code would be
independent of the adjustment to not rely on AUTODETECT_VALUE.
Can we do the latter change first (IIRC the former one failed already)?
All right, so I'm doing the first step by eliminating A
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 3:21 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/11/21 15:05, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_var_tracking)
> >> +opts->x_flag_var_tracking = optimize >= 1;
> > That's still not equivalent to the old code for -fvar-tracking-uninit which
> > sets opts->x_flag_va
On 10/11/21 15:05, Richard Biener wrote:
+ if (!opts_set->x_flag_var_tracking)
+opts->x_flag_var_tracking = optimize >= 1;
That's still not equivalent to the old code for -fvar-tracking-uninit which
sets opts->x_flag_var_tracking to 1 and the old code checked that
for AUTOINIT_VALUE but you
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:02 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> After the recent change in Optimize attribute handling, we need
> finish_option function properly auto-detecting variable tracking options.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed?
After the recent change in Optimize attribute handling, we need
finish_option function properly auto-detecting variable tracking options.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
PR debug/102585
gcc/ChangeLog:
20 matches
Mail list logo
