From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 75447 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2016 17:19:32 -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 75431 invoked by uid 89); 2 Nov 2016 17:19:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-oi0-f42.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f42.google.com) (209.85.218.42) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:19:31 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id x4so26252718oix.2 for ; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:19:31 -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=NMpEOIsQ94xGrikDOmI76I8d3bWEfBsm4WQj8a9OWG4=; b=UGYSA5zJbRYoB7XLI82Hxc9N/vwEY+X5loH/jnqSv8hKCDJiPU6fn8Lwsianj8Udds EGIv0hA59Tq3PdL3u9NmVvHofsFhKlEWI95NbXjpMGY6VUoAozQT0dUqKzQF1Hp7/8Jc PZm8kYSZuMTzyCmHOfoPQvMfZvQcv3MH4HjL4yKGIGs7nnxdgvadiDcGbzHzfWRIp6VS gQtRVHr9BNqJJ4RV8ndnrweghOoPFGCb9NRCsotv6QvVzXlmbxQ9IkVcNGDZhpQwedHE 0Z0QVEL+yC8fuk2WneYOnzOY8i9m3WgiEAXWUYVBtfBnRmuqxjgwDH46Co+NwgmyD0Kx MSKg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdVXT8YRurdX0+vIEZM5Ia24lfhNHthyOvPllCj0Qz/0JRUFuWFs0W5rSmw2lysy++K8q+W8VMQljQgFvdp X-Received: by 10.202.239.11 with SMTP id n11mr4182756oih.88.1478107169721; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:19:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.183.13.228 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:19:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20161102163326.GY3541@tucnak.redhat.com> References: <20161102143100.GU3541@tucnak.redhat.com> <20161102154405.GX3541@tucnak.redhat.com> <20161102163326.GY3541@tucnak.redhat.com> From: Jason Merrill Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] DW_TAG_ptr_to_member_type for PMF and DW_AT_{,rvalue_}reference for those 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/msg00226.txt.bz2 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. Jason