From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2578 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2011 22:24:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 2570 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Apr 2011 22:24:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:24:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 26926 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2011 22:24:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (froydnj@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 25 Apr 2011 22:24:14 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:06:00 -0000 From: Nathan Froyd To: Jason Merrill Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH PING] c++-specific bits of tree-slimming patches Message-ID: <20110425222414.GF23480@codesourcery.com> References: <20110324131518.GO23480@codesourcery.com> <4D9F4AE0.6050200@redhat.com> <20110422005052.GU23480@codesourcery.com> <4DB0ECA1.7080705@redhat.com> <20110422025554.GV23480@codesourcery.com> <4DB10B29.9040407@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DB10B29.9040407@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg02008.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:59:21AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/21/2011 10:55 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:49:05PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> Hunh. How does that work? They fill in CASE_LABEL later? Can that be >>> changed? >> >> Yeah, tree-eh.c:lower_try_finally_switch. I don't know how easy it is >> to fix; it certainly looks non-trivial. > > Well, I tried adjusting it and regression testing seems fine so far. I > can't think what the comment would be talking about with pointers not > providing a stable order; I don't see anything that would rely on > that. Based on discussion downthread, I plan to commit something like your patch (I think `label' is unused after this, so requires trivial changes) on your behalf tomorrow, unless you beat me to it or unless somebody yells. I'd rather have this not mixed up with the rest of the build_case_label changes. -Nathan