From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49214 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2016 19:54:28 -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 49188 invoked by uid 89); 3 Nov 2016 19:54:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-oi0-f53.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f53.google.com) (209.85.218.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Nov 2016 19:54:26 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id v84so107181310oie.3 for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2016 12:54:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nU0VPIFjJWtpD32AkhJTXnCViinQ5aKU6MHairAXw8U=; b=PSuGdxCHZzH61UJjue250VG88PBO5WJjb1Bwt/pBDrole7Xp8JsdcyP1v6L6df23N8 SlwdOww/5xI+ISp1xHe77EeNpj5U7N/rTXcwdhRy7dBLb2Ewdf+hRiS6TyJf+ksL6Ia0 p1LlwXk7dRW6Wvk+K6FJgE4qve4RQ57Owd+JX7RjB4NnsVlOWmiUlaInmMGRN37xuYNR HTUF9GFtjXDvwxYbLBLwMunLRgJSh4lWE6mULzx+DJ3sVVZMkV2h0XC6Tm100hwhWQrD Vy5nNnIvUrz9q0mmBkWJnKkmuoiRjk2CVnQMXJNuqsJrJg2PRuyVbo4p4cwYcbvFWxU8 GARA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcpvPa7fPeXeG79R9mIw+8/c+wH7Amn0lGTjwxW11tYJ3xtP+ntVAdbN6vo9y7B4msS1j3livGER7fiJXgK X-Received: by 10.157.46.149 with SMTP id w21mr6954473ota.219.1478202864722; Thu, 03 Nov 2016 12:54:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.183.13.228 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:54:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20161103163850.GP3541@tucnak.redhat.com> References: <20161102143100.GU3541@tucnak.redhat.com> <20161102154405.GX3541@tucnak.redhat.com> <20161102163326.GY3541@tucnak.redhat.com> <20161103163850.GP3541@tucnak.redhat.com> From: Jason Merrill Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 19:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] DW_TAG_ptr_to_member_type for PMF and DW_AT_{,rvalue_}reference for those (take 2) To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Alexandre Oliva , Keith Seitz , Jan Kratochvil , Pierre-Marie de Rodat , gcc-patches List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 01:19:09PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:44:05PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> which means if gen_type_die or gen_type_die_with_usage doesn't >> >> use the langhook, then we'd emit a completely useless { __pfn; __delta } >> >> struct into debug info first, and then in modified_type_die used >> >> the langhook, get OFFSET_TYPE and probably create the >> >> DW_TAG_ptr_to_member_type. So I think we really need that. >> >> >> >> > > 2) it is used for something Ada-ish I really don't know how to test etc. >> >> > > to be able to find out if it is safe to call it in >> >> > > gen_type_die_with_usage too >> >> > >> >> > You could find an Ada test that uses the code and verify that the >> >> > output stays the same? >> >> >> >> I can try to find the patch that introduced it and if it contained any >> >> testcases. >> > >> > I couldn't find any unfortunately. Pierre, could you please test if the >> > following patch doesn't regress anything in the Ada debug info area? >> > >> > Here is updated patch I'm going to bootstrap/regtest; it generates the >> > same debuginfo on ref-3.C testcase. >> >> Looks good. > > Keith's testing revealed a bug in the patch, that we don't emit > DW_TAG_typedef for PMF typedefs. Fixed by adding && !typedef_variant_p (type) > check to the cp_get_debug_type hook, so that we emit the proper typedef > with the right name and only its DECL_ORIGINAL_TYPE is replaced with > OFFSET_TYPE handling. I believe that was the only issue, so I think it > should be ok to enable it always, not just for -gdwarf-5. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? I checked in the hunks introducing check_lang_type separately; the rest is OK. Jason