From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-399260-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 78088 invoked by alias); 28 May 2015 20:52:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 78071 invoked by uid 89); 28 May 2015 20:52:02 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz
Received: from nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.20.16) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 28 May 2015 20:52:01 +0000
Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202)	id 13E89541B2A; Thu, 28 May 2015 22:51:57 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 21:16:00 -0000
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>,	Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 10/10] debug-early merge: compiler proper
Message-ID: <20150528205157.GC407@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <554C060F.6000609@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc16u2na9VeyMb5cVf4cH=caiBy6PRTJkX9DndzHcFxkBQ@mail.gmail.com> <555CAD35.5040304@redhat.com> <5565BB13.6040205@redhat.com> <5567643C.1020306@redhat.com> <55677C05.6040302@redhat.com> <20150528204214.GB407@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <55677E71.9060507@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55677E71.9060507@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg02698.txt.bz2

> On 05/28/2015 04:42 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >As for optimization changing type representation, I suppose one case is when
> >function with varray type gets inlined and the array bound happens to be a
> >different expression afterwards.  We produce a new copy of the original type
> >with different bounds then.
> 
> That makes sense, but that would be a new type rather than
> modifications to the old type.

Yep, that is all I can think of :)
Somehow the early dwarf needs to bind to the sizes that are represented as gimple
registers.  How this case is handled with early debug?

Honza
> 
> Jason
>