https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
leaving open, I think this might also be needed on 10.x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72f004746d87f01e5e3872af3214e3fa1b48dfa8
commit r11-10788-g72f004746d87f01e5e3872af3214e3fa1b48dfa8
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7e75cdb218f25708b8b1aa3f4b138d88187491f
commit r12-9501-gb7e75cdb218f25708b8b1aa3f4b138d88187491f
Author: Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc4cde2e6aa4d6ebdf7f70b7b4359fb59a1915ae
commit r13-6964-gfc4cde2e6aa4d6ebdf7f70b7b4359fb59a1915ae
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
> > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > > > So ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
>
> --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > > So .. for promotion of target expression temporaries to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > So .. for promotion of target expression temporaries to frame vars, one of:
> > - a) we need to find a different way to name them
> I think we can just count
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
> So .. for promotion of target expression temporaries to frame vars, one of:
> - a) we need to find a different way to name them
I think we can just count number of fields within a given frame type?
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> Hmm... maybe I am being too hasty here.
>
> If the coroutine has a definition in a header, then the coroutine frame type
> _should_ be the same for each instance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
Hmm... maybe I am being too hasty here.
If the coroutine has a definition in a header, then the coroutine frame type
_should_ be the same for each instance of it. So maybe this is actually
reporting a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> >
> > the synthesised functions (actor, destroy) are intended to be TU-local.
> > the ramp function is what remains of the user's original function after the
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> the synthesised functions (actor, destroy) are intended to be TU-local.
> the ramp function is what remains of the user's original function after the
> coroutine body is outlined - so that has the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
from me there has been no progress on anything co-routines related, for a while
- I of not have any resources to work on it.
> I am not really expert on coroutines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am not really expert on coroutines. But this seems to be a type (not a
declaration we globalize during LTO) generated internally by the front-end.
The name __D.9984.3.4 looks like it has a global counter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #5 from John Drouhard ---
Has there been any progress toward resolution for this? We've been trying to
use coroutines in our project but we require LTO for performance reasons, so
this is holding us back.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nils Gladitz from comment #3)
> Thanks for looking into this!
just speculation so far ...
> Any idea what the potential implications are?
Not yet.
> I assume I can't just ignore the warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #3 from Nils Gladitz ---
Thanks for looking into this!
Any idea what the potential implications are?
I assume I can't just ignore the warning as this will likely break code?
When I turn off LTO the diagnostic will go away but the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
hmm.
__D.9984.3.4 means that this is a frame variable that is a 'promoted' temporary
(promoted because its lifetime had to be extended across a suspend point by
copying it into the frame).
So, I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101118
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, lto
CC|
20 matches
Mail list logo
