Re: [PATCH 1/2] opts: change write_symbols to support bitmasks

2021-05-12 Thread Indu Bhagat via Gcc-patches
On 5/12/21 12:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Otherwise looks OK. Did you check for write_symbols uses in FEs and targets? Richard. Yes, I have. I must admit I have gone back and forth in my mind on this. My initial thinking was to adjust only those checks where I expect more than 1 write_symbols

Re: [PATCH 1/2] opts: change write_symbols to support bitmasks

2021-05-12 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 4:45 PM Indu Bhagat wrote: > > On 5/10/21 6:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 2:31 AM Indu Bhagat via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > >> > >> To support multiple debug formats, we need to move away from explicit > >> enumeration of each individual combinatio

Re: [PATCH 1/2] opts: change write_symbols to support bitmasks

2021-05-11 Thread Indu Bhagat via Gcc-patches
On 5/10/21 6:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 2:31 AM Indu Bhagat via Gcc-patches wrote: To support multiple debug formats, we need to move away from explicit enumeration of each individual combination of debug formats. debug_set_names with its static buffer seems unused?

Re: [PATCH 1/2] opts: change write_symbols to support bitmasks

2021-05-10 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 2:31 AM Indu Bhagat via Gcc-patches wrote: > > To support multiple debug formats, we need to move away from explicit > enumeration of each individual combination of debug formats. debug_set_names with its static buffer seems unused? You wire quite some APIs with gcc_assert