On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 7:04 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > After your patch does behavior change when trying to break on a line
> > with a return stmt inside a debugger?
>
> Note that every patch in the series was tested against GDB too, so hopefully
> this would have been caught... But the answe
> After your patch does behavior change when trying to break on a line
> with a return stmt inside a debugger?
Note that every patch in the series was tested against GDB too, so hopefully
this would have been caught... But the answer is no, see lower_gimple_return:
/* Generate a goto statemen
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:52 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > Hmm. So for
> >
> > int baz;
> > int foo()
> > {
> > int i;
> > goto skip;
> > done:
> > return i;
> > skip:
> > i = 1;
> > if (baz)
> > return baz;
> > /* ... */
> > goto done;
> > } /* (*) */
> >
> > we'd assign (*) t
> Hmm. So for
>
> int baz;
> int foo()
> {
> int i;
> goto skip;
> done:
> return i;
> skip:
> i = 1;
> if (baz)
> return baz;
> /* ... */
> goto done;
> } /* (*) */
>
> we'd assign (*) to the return? It might be better to record
> (in struct function?) the location of any act
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:16 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the returns are a little problematic for coverage info because they are
> commonalized in GIMPLE, i.e. turned into gotos to a representative return.
> This means that you need to clear the location of the representative return,
> se
Hi,
the returns are a little problematic for coverage info because they are
commonalized in GIMPLE, i.e. turned into gotos to a representative return.
This means that you need to clear the location of the representative return,
see lower_gimple_return:
/* Remove the line number from t
