public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/52178] [4.7 regression] Ada bootstrap failure in LTO mode
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:51:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-52178-4-NvoDiupW3f@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-52178-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52178

--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-10 17:51:19 UTC ---
> I don't understand this sentence completely - if the types have been merged
> then the COMPONENT_REFs should have been updated, too (do they only have
> "weak" matched types at the point of LTO streaming?  Thus, do they maybe
> depend on the frontend TYPE_CANONICAL setting?)

The Ada front-end doesn't touch TYPE_CANONICAL at all.  It's the same type, but
instantiated from different units.  What I don't understand is when type
merging is supposed to be done: WPA, LTRANS, or both?

> Unless the COMPONENT_REF in question comes from constant folding from
> a global variable initializer for example (which is what the ??? is about)?

No, it's in a simple assignment statement.

> So - at which point during the compilation does the verification issue
> happen?

See the opening message, it's LTRANS.  The type mismatch is already present
when the assignment statement is streamed in at the beginning of LTRANS, as the
streamed in FIELD_DECL isn't the original FIELD_DECL that was streamed out.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-02-10 17:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-02-08 21:37 [Bug lto/52178] New: " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-10 15:10 ` [Bug lto/52178] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-10 17:51 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2012-02-13 11:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 11:54 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 11:58 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-13 12:18 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 12:29 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-13 12:39 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 13:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 13:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 13:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 13:53 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 13:54 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 13:56 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 14:04 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-13 14:13 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 14:14 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-13 14:19 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-13 14:22 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 14:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 17:07 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-14  8:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-15  0:11 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-15  0:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-25 20:28 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-25 20:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.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=bug-52178-4-NvoDiupW3f@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).