From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-399905-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 114977 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2015 21:34:12 -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 114966 invoked by uid 89); 4 Jun 2015 21:34:12 -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, 04 Jun 2015 21:34:11 +0000
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24])	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E8ABBDD79;	Thu,  4 Jun 2015 21:34:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.10.116.25] ([10.10.116.25])	by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t54LY93m026996;	Thu, 4 Jun 2015 17:34:09 -0400
Message-ID: <5570C44D.2070503@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:21:00 -0000
From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>,        Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
CC: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [debug-early] fix problem with template parameter packs
References: <55482AF6.1090207@redhat.com>	<5549314D.6080804@redhat.com>	<5549373F.6020503@redhat.com>	<554A4146.4010501@redhat.com>	<5564A158.8010604@redhat.com>	<55661C58.6040305@redhat.com>	<556EFB62.3040209@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc0ED7vRnfK+fC8u4wo0XJWfYznYe3Dhgp4Qw1U5U73ULw@mail.gmail.com> <556F1256.1030400@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <556F1256.1030400@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00440.txt.bz2

On 06/03/2015 10:42 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> -  if (decl && (DECL_ABSTRACT_P (decl) || declaration || old_die == NULL))
> +  if (decl && (DECL_ABSTRACT_P (decl)
> +	       || !old_die || is_declaration_die (old_die)))

Do we still need DECL_ABSTRACT_P?  I wouldn't expect to get here when 
emitting the abstract function, as we should already have a die from 
early dwarf.

Jason