Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

2017-10-18 Thread Olivier Hainque
> On 18 Oct 2017, at 15:59, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >> I'd think so. LANG_TYPE is treated specially in several >> places and Ada debug types are pretty sensitive so this would >> require caution but I don't see/know-of obvious reasons why this >> couldn't be done. > > LANG_TYPE is only used in A

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

2017-10-18 Thread Eric Botcazou
> I'd think so. LANG_TYPE is treated specially in several > places and Ada debug types are pretty sensitive so this would > require caution but I don't see/know-of obvious reasons why this > couldn't be done. LANG_TYPE is only used in Ada to trigger the specific treatment in gen_type_die_with_usa

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

2017-10-18 Thread Olivier Hainque
> On Oct 17, 2017, at 16:10 , Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > On 10/17/2017 05:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > >> Sorry for not looking at the patch before replying. The patch looks ok >> but shouldn't LANG_TYPE be also handled by the FE? LANG_TYPE itself >> is an odd beast if I may say that - it's

Re: Unbreak Ada bootstrap (was Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size)

2017-10-17 Thread Eric Botcazou
> This change broke Ada bootstrap, because the FE doesn't have any tree_size > langhook, but has one language specific tcc_type tree - > UNCONSTRAINED_ARRAY_TYPE. There should be a requirement to test all languages for this kind of changes. > Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux a

Re: Unbreak Ada bootstrap (was Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size)

2017-10-17 Thread Richard Biener
On October 17, 2017 9:29:46 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:29:40PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >> [Although I filed this as a middle-end bug, it's really a core infra >bug, >> not sure who the best reviewer is] > >> 2017-10-13 Nathan Sidwell >> >>

Unbreak Ada bootstrap (was Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size)

2017-10-17 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:29:40PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > [Although I filed this as a middle-end bug, it's really a core infra bug, > not sure who the best reviewer is] > 2017-10-13 Nathan Sidwell > > PR middle-end/82546 > gcc/ > * tree.c (tree_code_size): Reform

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

2017-10-17 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 10/17/2017 05:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > Sorry for not looking at the patch before replying. The patch looks ok > > but shouldn't LANG_TYPE be also handled by the FE? LANG_TYPE itself > > is an odd beast if I may say that - it's only used

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

2017-10-17 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 10/17/2017 05:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Sorry for not looking at the patch before replying. The patch looks ok but shouldn't LANG_TYPE be also handled by the FE? LANG_TYPE itself is an odd beast if I may say that - it's only used by the C++ and Ada FEs and the Ada FE does only I agree.

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

2017-10-17 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 10/16/2017 02:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On October 13, 2017 8:29:40 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell > > wrote: > > > > I intend to continue cleaning this up of course. It's not clear to me > > > whether we should cache these node sizes in an a

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

2017-10-16 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 10/16/2017 02:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On October 13, 2017 8:29:40 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell wrote: I intend to continue cleaning this up of course. It's not clear to me whether we should cache these node sizes in an array, and the way it goes about checking nodes with nested switc

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

2017-10-15 Thread Richard Biener
On October 13, 2017 8:29:40 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >[Although I filed this as a middle-end bug, it's really a core infra >bug, not sure who the best reviewer is] > >In working on tree streaming in the modules branch, I discovered poor >tree node size and hierarchy bits. > >Here's a