I know It just makes me feel better to know we're in agreement. Old habits
die hard I guess ;-).
On Oct 3, 2014 7:08 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 10/02/2014 03:24 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > If you aOn 10/02/2014 03:24 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> If you are ok with this incremental pat
On 10/02/2014 03:24 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
If you are ok with this incremental patch, I will push it to the branch.
Looks good. In general I don't think you need to wait for approval
before checking something in on your own branch. :)
Jason
On 10/02/14 08:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/30/2014 02:43 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ if (parm_die
+ /* Make sure the function to which this parameter belongs to is
+ not an abstract instance. If it is, we can't reuse anything.
+ We must create a new DW_TAG_formal_parameter with
On 10/02/2014 11:53 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/30/2014 02:43 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ if (parm_die
+ /* Make sure the function to which this parameter belongs to is
+ not an abstract instance. If it is, we can't reuse anything.
+ We must create a new DW_TAG_formal_parameter
On 09/30/2014 02:43 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ if (parm_die
+ /* Make sure the function to which this parameter belongs to is
+not an abstract instance. If it is, we can't reuse anything.
+We must create a new DW_TAG_formal_parameter with a
+corresponding DW_AT_abs
Hi Jason.
As discussed on IRC, DIEs of abstract instances of functions (those
tagged with DW_AT_inline), cannot include information that would be
different between an abstract inline and an out-of-line copy. This, as
well as (seeming) gdb snafus regarding abstract origins, was the reason
I w
