public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "law at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/53948] [4.8 Regression] Assignment line missing for -O0 -g Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:05:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-53948-4-U9taimQtmL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-53948-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53948 Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |law at redhat dot com AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> 2013-02-07 20:04:00 UTC --- So, the real problem here is that replacing VAR_OR_FUNCTION_DECL_P && ! DECL_ARTIFICAL with REG_USERVAR_P is not the same. In particular the former is _false_ for parameters and the latter is true. c#3 is totally wrong, parameters are marked with REG_USERVAR_P. The real way to get the prior behaviour without reverting the patch is to either explicitly mark parameters so we can check for them in this one hunk of code. Or to create a helper function in a suitable location that can map from a reg to its decl, then check if it's a parameter. Given that flags in the main rtl structures are generally scarce, I think the latter is a better solution given how rarely we need to make this distinction. It's unfortunate that this P1 regression was left languishing, half analyzed in our tree for 6+ months ;(
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-07 20:05 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-07-13 8:51 [Bug debug/53948] New: " jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com 2012-07-13 9:12 ` [Bug debug/53948] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-16 19:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-16 19:49 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-16 20:23 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-16 21:58 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-19 13:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-07 20:05 ` law at redhat dot com [this message] 2013-02-07 20:24 ` stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com 2013-02-07 20:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-07 20:47 ` law at redhat dot com 2013-02-08 8:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08 13:20 ` law at redhat dot com 2013-02-08 13:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08 20:04 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08 20:05 ` law at redhat dot com 2013-02-08 20:07 ` law at redhat 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-53948-4-U9taimQtmL@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: linkBe 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).