From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 99651 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2016 10:38:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 99604 invoked by uid 89); 10 Oct 2016 10:38:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=inner_type, Hx-languages-length:2310, sk:complex, business X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:38:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957B6812D6; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:38:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3GWKqT20mAoL; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:38:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from polaris.localnet (bon31-6-88-161-99-133.fbx.proxad.net [88.161.99.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D605812D5; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:38:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix GC issue triggered by arithmetic overflow checking Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <2004625.PcKOVMIpSq@polaris> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/3.16.7-42-desktop; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1863165.r8qPLI7fxq@polaris> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00592.txt.bz2 > I believe the rule is that you might only depend on the order of objects > with respect to their DECL_UID, not the actual value of the DECL_UID. > As var-tracking shouldn't look at TYPE_DECLs (?) it's probably a latent > var-tracking bug as well. It presumably doesn't look at TYPE_DECLs, simply the DECL_UID of variables is also different so this changes some hashing. > I'd prefer the named parameter to be defaulted to false and the few > places in the FEs fixed (eventually that name business should be > handled like names for nodes like integer_type_node -- I see no > reason why build_complex_type should have this special-case at all! > That is, why are the named vairants in the type hash in the first place?) I think that the calls in build_common_tree_nodes need to be changed too then: complex_integer_type_node = build_complex_type (integer_type_node); complex_float_type_node = build_complex_type (float_type_node); complex_double_type_node = build_complex_type (double_type_node); complex_long_double_type_node = build_complex_type (long_double_type_node); in addition to: ./ada/gcc-interface/decl.c: = build_complex_type ./ada/gcc-interface/decl.c: return build_complex_type (nt); ./ada/gcc-interface/trans.c: tree gnu_ctype = build_complex_type (gnu_type); ./c/c-decl.c: specs->type = build_complex_type (specs->type); ./c/c-decl.c: specs->type = build_complex_type (specs->type); ./c/c-decl.c: specs->type = build_complex_type (specs->type); ./c/c-parser.c: build_complex_type ./c/c-typeck.c: return build_complex_type (subtype); ./c-family/c-common.c: return build_complex_type (inner_type); ./c-family/c-lex.c: type = build_complex_type (type); ./cp/decl.c: type = build_complex_type (type); ./cp/typeck.c: return build_type_attribute_variant (build_complex_type (subtype), ./fortran/trans-types.c:gfc_build_complex_type (tree scalar_type) ./fortran/trans-types.c: type = gfc_build_complex_type (type); ./go/go-gcc.cc: build_complex_type(TREE_TYPE(real_tree)), ./go/go-gcc.cc: type = build_complex_type(type); ./lto/lto-lang.c: return build_complex_type (inner_type); Or perhaps *only* the calls in build_common_tree_nodes need to be changed? It's certainly old code (r29604, September 1999). -- Eric Botcazou