From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4413 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2014 14:04:25 -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 4403 invoked by uid 89); 1 Oct 2014 14:04:24 -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,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wg0-f44.google.com Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f44.google.com) (74.125.82.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:04:21 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id y10so577726wgg.3 for ; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.186.178 with SMTP id fl18mr62058104wjc.8.1412172258219; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.20.69 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 07:04:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <542AC6EC.8010408@redhat.com> References: <5429AAD6.7070708@redhat.com> <542AC6EC.8010408@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [debug-early] rearrange some checks in gen_subprogram_die From: Richard Biener To: Aldy Hernandez Cc: gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > On 09/30/14 03:23, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>> >>> I'm rearranging some code in Michael's original patch to minimize the >>> difference with mainline. >>> >>> It seems that the check for DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (decl)->gimple_df, was >>> merely a check to see if we had already set the FDE bits for the decl in >>> question. >> >> >> Sounds more like a check whether the frontend is finished? > > > Is that the canonical way for checking the FE is finished? Seems kinda odd. > I'd prefer to check for ->fde, since this is the actual reason the rest of > dwarf generation will not work in this case. > > Either way, I'm not terribly attached to this particular part of the patch. > If you'd rather me use ->gimple_df, I can use it. It just doesn't seem very > readable. No, checking ->gimple_df would be odd indeed. The check seems to be coming from Michas patch-set? Richard. > Aldy