On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 September 2015 at 10:18, Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> input_location is set from the call stmt:
>>
>> /* FIXME: instantiate_decl isn't called by inlinable_function_p. */
>> saved_location = input_location;
>> input_location = gimple_location (stmt);
>>
>> it would be nice to get rid of that.
>
> I could replace all uses of input_location in this function by
> gimple_location(stmt) as I noted in the comments. Would that be ok if
> it works? I'm not sure I can prove that input_location is not used
> behind the scenes for some other purpose (all the more reason to kill
> input_location once and for all). Friends, don't let friends use
> input_location in new code!
Yeah... not sure how to check but to look for any changes in
generated cc1/cc1plus
debug info. You could also try making it invalid (-1?) and hope
libcpp would eventually
blow up if that is used.
>> If the call is artificially generated it might have no location so I
>> think the assert
>> is bogus. Also in the case of UNKNOWN_LOCATION it would be nice to at
>
> I was sure of that, but I was also surprised that not a single
> testcase was triggering it. I can re-submit without the assert.
please
>> least note the function we are failing to inline to (thus, use
>> DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION
>> of cfun->decl). So better add a diag_location and compute that upfront to
>> avoid
>> repeating the check.
>
> error ("inlining failed in call to always_inline %q+F: %s", fn,
> cgraph_inline_failed_string (reason));
>
> The call is using '+F', thus the location is set to some location
> related to F, depending on which *_printer function is active at that
> moment. cp_printer uses location_of, and default_tree_printer uses
> DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION. Is the default_tree_printer always used at this
> point? If yes, I completely agree we should use an explicit
> DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION. The meaning of '+' is not only opaque but it
> breaks #pragma GCC diagnostic.
But it prints the location of the function we failed to inline. I
want to retain
at least an approximation to the location of the call, which is the location
of the function we inline _to_.
>
>> Did you investigate the glibc case on whether caller or callee are
>> artificial?
>
> No, I could not get glibc to compile. Unfortunately, the machine of
> the compile farm that I use to work on GCC is too old. Installing
> locally all up-to-date dependencies would require too much time from
> me that is better spent on other things. Nevertheless, printing "cc1:
> called from here" is always bogus. Not printing it is better. If we
> could print something smarter, that would be perfect, but I don't know
> how to do that, so "better" is good enough for me. Would you agree?
Well, it's easy to do better, see above.
Richard.
> Cheers,
>
> Manuel.
