From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 130796 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2016 07:10:35 -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 130612 invoked by uid 89); 4 Mar 2016 07:10:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=anytime, Hx-languages-length:986, prune, Yours 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, 04 Mar 2016 07:10:28 +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 611097AE89 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 07:10:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from slagheap.utah.redhat.com ([10.3.113.3]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u247AQ3e001313; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:10:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Patch ping To: Jakub Jelinek , Jason Merrill References: <20160303143556.GI3017@tucnak.redhat.com> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <56D934E2.2020101@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 07:10:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160303143556.GI3017@tucnak.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00311.txt.bz2 On 03/03/2016 07:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to ping fix for P1 PR69947: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01743.html So essentially this is just marking more things so that we don't prune them away, right? It's similar conceptually to one of Pierre-Marie's patches where he removed the switch and recursed anytime the operand's val_class matched dw_val_class_die_ref and was !external. Yours just explicitly adds the new DW_OP_ things to the switch and has a slightly looser check (dropping the !external part of the check). I could argue for either approach. Yours AFAICT is safer in that it won't recurse on unexpected DW_OP_ things. Of course, it may require more long term maintenance to keep the list of things to recurse on up-to-date. Either approach is OK with me, given you're a lot more familiar with our dwarf writer than I, I'll go with your judgment on which is the best approach to address the problem. jeff