public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug pch/14137] [pch] ICE in cgraph_finalize_compilation_unit, at cgraphunit.c:407
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:52:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040323215254.19907.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040213062200.14137.mattyt-bugzilla@tpg.com.au>


------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-03-23 21:52 -------
I'm not sure what to say about this patch.

You've fixed just one of a tiny number of problems of the same flavor.  (For
example, consider -fabi-version=X!)

Most (all other?) compilers with PCH implementations store the entire
command-line and compare it.  We should do the same, but that would take some
infrastructure.  

One good step would be to organize all of our flags into a single structure;
then that structure could be emitted as part of the PCH file.  For example:

  struct flags {
    int unit_at_a_time;
    ...
  };

(These could also be bitfields of course.)

Then, you wouldn't have to translate between flag_* and bits in the PCH header,
and you could just memcmp the two structures.

Yes, there might be cases where that would incorrect reject a PCH, but that is
the conservative choice.  You could make override the comparison of particular
fields to make the comparison laxer as required.

I'll approve this patch for GCC 3.4.0 and mainline, but I'd like to see a more
comprehensive approach attempted in future.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14137


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-03-23 21:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-02-13  6:22 [Bug c++/14137] New: " mattyt-bugzilla at tpg dot com dot au
2004-02-13  6:36 ` [Bug pch/14137] [pch] [unit-at-a-time] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-02-13  6:42 ` [Bug pch/14137] [pch] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-02-13 18:55 ` geoffk at desire dot geoffk dot org
2004-03-22 17:54 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-22 18:34 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-23 21:52 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2004-03-23 22:50 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-24 22:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-24 22:30 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-26 23:38 ` geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-26 23:53 ` stevenb at suse dot de
2004-03-27  6:16 ` geoffk at desire dot geoffk dot org
2004-03-27 10:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-30 17:23 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
2004-03-30 23:07 ` geoffk at desire dot geoffk dot org
2004-03-30 23:26 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-08 19:55 ` geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-04-08 20:16 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
2004-04-08 23:41 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-04-08 23:45 ` geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040323215254.19907.qmail@sources.redhat.com \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).