From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22859 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2010 14:25:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 22834 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Aug 2010 14:25:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pv0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-pv0-f175.google.com) (74.125.83.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:25:44 +0000 Received: by pvg6 with SMTP id 6so1241290pvg.20 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.121.16 with SMTP id t16mr503573wac.169.1282919142473; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:25:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.153.196 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:25:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <662566448.453381282918810720.JavaMail.root@zimbra30-e5.priv.proxad.net> References: <1117289297.446531282913343686.JavaMail.root@zimbra30-e5.priv.proxad.net> <662566448.453381282918810720.JavaMail.root@zimbra30-e5.priv.proxad.net> From: Laurynas Biveinis Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Gengtype : strange code in output_type_enum To: jeremie.salvucci@free.fr Cc: gcc , basile Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2 2010/8/27 : > We recompiled GCC-trunk r162692 with the following modification : > > In function output_type_enum of gcc/gengtype.c, we replaced > > - =C2=A0if (s->kind =3D=3D TYPE_PARAM_STRUCT && s->u.s.line.file !=3D NUL= L) > + =C2=A0if (s->kind =3D=3D TYPE_PARAM_STRUCT && s->u.param_struct.line.fi= le !=3D NULL) > > And Gengtype works like before with c,c++, lto enabled. > > Do you think we have to submit a one line patch (if yes, could it be revi= ewed quickly)? We don't know why the old version works, and we think writin= g u.s.line.file is incorrect for TYPE_PARAM_STRUCT (even if it happens to w= ork by luck), since the union u.param_struct member is the only valid for T= YPE_PARAM_STRUCT. One-line patches are welcome, but in this instance could you please find out how the old code worked before changing it (as you admit, you don't understand it). --=20 Laurynas