From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67062 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2017 03:13:31 -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 67047 invoked by uid 89); 17 Mar 2017 03:13:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-wm0-f49.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f49.google.com) (74.125.82.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 03:13:29 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n11so5924829wma.1 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:13:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oSjGUlltDpYGvODwjev1r0Sqzg354wGYvEcwbxmSGhY=; b=mi7NOxHnuXXF6fnrupj3JvqgNH0TKiJXbTaOrIIrA6ZY5ZCux3rACycLREu5XP179I 1UjHHGrjGabfU+Kr/JGHKDUyQQBHlPJM/Y6eBfCUsaNq3C03ZCfj0mHL8j7CVwNZGgWO FNkzC+eV0iyzqxJAdqyEnKyGbjzPwobfdOUjiXhWVjkksIHY4X4SzrpdP4tpyQe00Bqn 3PFcklddY70+fl2eMKr6Bokr0F28eJIGCmHhlVal0828/V23T0PppF4NIOV20glu+Z0d nmp7NfK4r/qqCvu/gJBmA5ggu5aZjQH9Aso6PWGmIKk0o5IOBf5U4q41rRHBx17AWpNM IZvg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H00zw6kglqYsvU4zcxa/z8uLE10v7jAZEexF1RvyMRvAh2ArdEZj9vuWhYQ7SxLMQhcLV3NmjnIQLoGLQ== X-Received: by 10.28.207.14 with SMTP id f14mr680476wmg.72.1489720407825; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:13:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.148.194 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:13:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Cary Coutant Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 03:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PR63238] output alignment debug information To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: GCC Patches , Jason Merrill Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg00911.txt.bz2 >> This is OK so far, but the DW_AT_alignment attribute also needs to be >> added to the checksum computation in die_checksum and >> die_checksum_ordered. > > Thanks. I see what to do in die_checksum_ordered, but die_checksum? It > seems to handle attributes by value class, and AFAICT the classes that > DW_AT_alignment could use are already covered. What am I missing? > > Here's a patch I'm about to start testing. Does it look ok? Sorry, I read this while I wasn't in a position to reply, then totally forgot about it. Yes, you're right about die_checksum, sorry. And, for the record, it looks OK. -cary