[Bug debug/41439] New: choose DW_OP_stack_value over DW_OP_implicit_value more often, please

[Bug debug/41439] New: choose DW_OP_stack_value over DW_OP_implicit_value more often, please

[roland at redhat dot com]

The comment in address_of_int_loc_descriptor doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 In any case of a value no larger than address size, you can use
DW_OP_stack_value to get the same size or smaller.  When the size is the same,
such as DW_OP_implicit_value(address-sized block) vs
DW_OP_addr(address-consant) DW_OP_stack_value (both address-size + 2 bytes), I
think DW_OP_stack_value is preferable because consumers do not have to involve
overly-general variable-sized-stuff-with-relocs logic that the general case of
constant blocks involves.  There is no need for a DW_OP_{bit_,}piece in these
cases when the expressed value is in the low bits of the value computed on the
stack.


-- 
           Summary: choose DW_OP_stack_value over DW_OP_implicit_value more
                    often, please
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: debug
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: roland at redhat dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41439

[Bug debug/41439] choose DW_OP_stack_value over DW_OP_implicit_value more often, please

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement
            Version|unknown                     |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41439

[Bug debug/41439] choose DW_OP_stack_value over DW_OP_implicit_value more often, please

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-09-23 08:51 -------
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01602.html


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-09-23 08:51:05
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41439

[Bug debug/41439] choose DW_OP_stack_value over DW_OP_implicit_value more often, please

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-09-23 18:07 -------
Subject: Bug 41439

Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 23 18:07:07 2009
New Revision: 152091

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152091
Log:
        PR debug/41439
        * dwarf2out.c (address_of_int_loc_descriptor): Don't emit
        DW_OP_piece after DW_OP_stack_value, adjust size calculations
        for it, when DW_OP_stack_value and DW_OP_implicit_value has
        the same size, prefer DW_OP_stack_value.
        (loc_descriptor, loc_list_for_address_of_addr_expr_of_indirect_ref,
        loc_list_from_tree): Don't emit DW_OP_piece after DW_OP_stack_value.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/dwarf2out.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41439

[Bug debug/41439] choose DW_OP_stack_value over DW_OP_implicit_value more often, please

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-24 09:01 -------
Fixed.


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41439