From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13438 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2015 09:06:13 -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 13427 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jan 2015 09:06:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f176.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f176.google.com) (209.85.214.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:06:11 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id vb8so7013492obc.7 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:06:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.189.133 with SMTP id n127mr1620490oif.23.1421226369348; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:06:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.69.196 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:06:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54B54936.8060600@redhat.com> References: <54B54936.8060600@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] update function comments for lto_symtab_encoder_encode_* From: Richard Biener To: Aldy Hernandez , Jan Hubicka Cc: gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00985.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Hi Richard. > > I'm chasing my tail here looking at an LTO + debug problem, and for the life > of me I can't figure out how all this partition business affects a symbol's > `analyzed' bit. Anyways... the documentation for all these functions is > wrong. > > Can you look at this patch and tell me if it makes sense? I feel a bit > uneasy committing under the obvious rule, since I don't entirely understand > the partitioning thing. > > Would anyone mind me fixing this on mainline? It's just a comment fix. Yeah, it's ok for trunk. > Also, since you seem to understand all this best, can you suggest some > better wording for the lto_encoder_entry comments? > > /* Entry of LTO symtab encoder. */ > struct lto_encoder_entry > { > symtab_node *node; > /* Is the node in this partition (i.e. ltrans of this partition will > be responsible for outputting it)? */ > unsigned int in_partition:1; > /* Do we encode body in this partition? */ > unsigned int body:1; > /* Do we encode initializer in this partition? > For example the readonly variable initializers are encoded to aid > constant folding even if they are not in the partition. */ > unsigned int initializer:1; > }; > > Whenever I get to the LTO part of this project, I promise to start > documenting things better. This whole thing is a mystery. Well - mostly to me as well ;) I'll let Honza answer this... Thanks, Richard. > Thanks. > Aldy