From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28573 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2015 14:48:50 -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 28564 invoked by uid 89); 3 Apr 2015 14:48:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:48:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t33Emmvi024883 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:48:48 -0400 Received: from [10.10.116.19] ([10.10.116.19]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t33EmllK016187; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:48:47 -0400 Message-ID: <551EA84E.7080200@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:48:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aldy Hernandez CC: gcc-patches Subject: Re: [debug-early] Handle specification of class scoped static functions References: <550C5F3A.1030802@redhat.com> <550C8F4C.1020003@redhat.com> <550CB740.6040305@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <550CB740.6040305@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2 On 03/20/2015 08:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > + /* For class scoped static functions, the dumped early > + version was the declaration, whereas the next time > + around with a different context should be the > + specification. In this case, avoid reusing the DIE, but > + generate a specification below. E.g.: > + > + class C { > + public: > + static void moo () {} > + }; */ > + || !is_cu_die (context_die)) Why do we still need this added (relative to trunk)? Are we getting here multiple times with class context_die? Also, the comment seems redundant with the comment immediately above. Jason