public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/44783] implement -ftemplate-backtrace-limit=
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:28:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-44783-4-DNTV1zK5rC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-44783-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44783

--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-14 14:27:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Thanks Manuel. Thus, I'm going to test your patch. Was wondering, maybe we want
> the nit: 'n_total > template_backtrace_limit + 2' n the condition, in order to
> keep by default exactly the current behavior?

This is why I wanted a testcase. The ones that are in the testsuite from when I
added this behaviour do not trigger the "skipping message" anymore, since later
I implemented recognizing the recursive template (which is much nicer IMHO). So
we need a testcase that triggers this (like a very deep instantiation or
something that the recursion detection cannot handle).

n_total >= 12 == n_total > template_backtrace_limit + 1

The +1 is basically giving enough space, so at least we always print 2 template
instantiations, one before and one after the "skipping". However, if
template_backtrace_limit=1 and n_total = 2, should we print just 1 (new patch)
or still 2 (old behavior)? This was not a problem before because
template_backtrace_limit was always 10.

> Otherwise, shall I send the patch to the mailing list for you? Thanks again.

Yes, please. Feel free also to edit it or completely modify it. Thanks.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-02-14 14:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-44783-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-09-25 15:22 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-09-26 18:34 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-17 18:16 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-02-13  1:07 ` gredner at gmail dot com
2012-02-13  8:57 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-02-13 17:11 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-14 11:15 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-02-14 12:37 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-02-14 14:28 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2012-02-14 14:45 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-02-14 16:27 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-14 16:46 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-02-15 15:57 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-03-15 10:00 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-15 10:04 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com

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=bug-44783-4-DNTV1zK5rC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --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).