From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60978 invoked by alias); 28 May 2015 20:45:45 -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 60301 invoked by uid 89); 28 May 2015 20:45:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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; Thu, 28 May 2015 20:45:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A52C2C2FF4; Thu, 28 May 2015 20:45:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.116.39] ([10.10.116.39]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t4SKjfgr014650; Thu, 28 May 2015 16:45:42 -0400 Message-ID: <55677E71.9060507@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 21:10:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Hubicka CC: Aldy Hernandez , Richard Biener , gcc-patches Subject: Re: [patch 10/10] debug-early merge: compiler proper References: <554C060F.6000609@redhat.com> <555CAD35.5040304@redhat.com> <5565BB13.6040205@redhat.com> <5567643C.1020306@redhat.com> <55677C05.6040302@redhat.com> <20150528204214.GB407@kam.mff.cuni.cz> In-Reply-To: <20150528204214.GB407@kam.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg02697.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. Jason