From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5210 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2015 13:31:39 -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 3386 invoked by uid 89); 23 Nov 2015 13:31:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yk0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-yk0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f173.google.com) (209.85.160.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:31:37 +0000 Received: by ykdv3 with SMTP id v3so236172851ykd.0 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 05:31:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.148.65 with SMTP id l62mr25922324ywg.263.1448285495318; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 05:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.93.11 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 05:31:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <10201371.6dVo0aV1rO@polaris> References: <20151121182122.GB23225@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <43889409.Q8BpRmYV9r@polaris> <20151123111457.GA8892@adacore.com> <10201371.6dVo0aV1rO@polaris> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Fix lto-symtab ICE during Ada LTO bootstrap From: Richard Biener To: Eric Botcazou Cc: Arnaud Charlet , GCC Patches , Jan Hubicka Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg02711.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> No, Interfaces.C.Extensions is non portable, so almost no Ada code out there >> is using it. As I said, existing Ada code is using System.Address all the >> time, so requiring any code change in this area is just a non starter. We'd >> rather require that people don't use LTO with Ada rather than tell them to >> use Interfaces.C.Extensions, that would be more constructive :-) > > I see, too bad that Interfaces.C doesn't define something along these lines. > > In practice I'm not sure it's a big issue, because presumably it's essentially > used to interface the C library and AFAIK we don't LTO the C library (yet). > And I presume that, if people start interfacing in Ada with C code doing heavy > pointer manipulation, we can also point them to Interfaces.C.Pointers. :-) But can't you on the GENERIC side drop System.Address to void_ptr_node again and just not make use of the "heavy lifting" you were talking about? That is, why is that speciality of System.Address not a Ada FE thing only? Richard. > -- > Eric Botcazou