From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Nathan Froyd <froydnj@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH PING] c++-specific bits of tree-slimming patches
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 17:50:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D9F4AE0.6050200@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110324131518.GO23480@codesourcery.com>
On 03/24/2011 09:15 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> The C++-specific bits of these patches:
>
> [PATCH 02/18] enforce TREE_CHAIN and TREE_TYPE accesses
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00557.html
OK.
> [PATCH 07/18] generalize build_case_label to the rest of the compiler
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00557.html
> + tree t = make_node (CASE_LABEL_EXPR);
> +
> + TREE_TYPE (t) = void_type_node;
> + SET_EXPR_LOCATION (t, input_location);
As jsm and richi said, using input_location like this is a regression.
Can we use DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (label_decl) instead?
> [PATCH 08/18] convert cp *FOR_STMTs to use private scope fields
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00553.html
> [PATCH 09/18] convert cp IF_STMTs to use private scope fields
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00562.html
> [PATCH 10/18] convert cp SWITCH_STMTs to use private scope fields
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00552.html
OK.
> [PATCH 11/18] mark EXPR_PACK_EXPANSION as typed only
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00563.html
It looks like you need to add EXPR_PACK_EXPANSION cases to
value_dependent_expression_p and cp_tree_equal. Maybe split out the
code from write_expression that overrides TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH in some
cases and use that new function instead of TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH in these
places.
> [PATCH 17/18] introduce block_chainon and use BLOCK_CHAIN more
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00566.html
OK.
> Alternatively, could we have a GWP or similar rule on Tom's suggestion:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00620.html
>
> that patches propagating middle-end changes to front-ends are
> obvious/preapproved, perhaps after a 24-48 hour waiting period for
> comments? That would cover 02 and 07 above (possibly 17 as well); 02 is
> blocking some of the already-approved middle-end changes later in the
> series.
That makes sense to me, but I'd give it a week.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-08 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-24 13:15 Nathan Froyd
2011-04-05 12:10 ` Nathan Froyd
2011-04-08 17:50 ` Jason Merrill [this message]
2011-04-14 11:30 ` Nathan Froyd
2011-04-14 11:32 ` Richard Guenther
2011-04-21 16:33 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-04-22 2:49 ` Nathan Froyd
2011-04-22 3:59 ` Jason Merrill
2011-04-22 4:22 ` Nathan Froyd
2011-04-22 8:57 ` Jason Merrill
2011-04-22 9:12 ` Mike Stump
2011-04-22 12:36 ` Richard Guenther
2011-04-22 14:45 ` Nathan Froyd
2011-04-22 16:59 ` Jason Merrill
2011-04-22 17:35 ` Mike Stump
2011-04-29 8:38 ` Alexandre Oliva
2011-04-25 23:06 ` Nathan Froyd
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=4D9F4AE0.6050200@redhat.com \
--to=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=froydnj@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@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: link
Be 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).