Re: potiential problems with parm decls.

[Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>]

Kenneth Zadeck wrote:

> How are you (we) handling PARM_DECLS?
> Honza has informed my that the PARM_DECLS in the function's
> DECL_ARGUMENTS needs to be "==" to the set of PARM_DECLS accessed in the
> function.

The code I wrote doesn't set DECL_ARGUMENTS, on the theory that
parameters are essentially local variables.  I think it would be best if
you set these up because the only information I have is types, and that
may not be enough.  But, if that's impractical, then I will see what I
can do.

Also as for:

> Mark claims that everything on his end should work except for static
> initializers so we may be ready for some larger scale testing as soon as
> the above bug is tracked down.

It's more that I don't know what else is broken, rather than that I
think it's all perfect. :-)  I don't want to give the impression I think
it's all in tip-top shape.

Also, with respect to static initializers, I think I can make it work in
the direction I started, but if you think it's easy to serialize
initializers using your existing machinery, that might be an easier
path.  How hard would it be to leverage your serialization code to put
static initializers for variables in their own sections, so that the
initializer for "i" would be in some ".lto.i" section in the same way
that the body of "f" is in ".lto.f"?  I'm happy to work on this; I'm
just looking for some guidance as to what you think about it.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713