[Bug debug/42801] C VLAs should use DW_AT_allocated

2010-05-25 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-25 16:16 --- Subject: Bug 42801 Author: jakub Date: Tue May 25 16:15:38 2010 New Revision: 159826 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=159826 Log: PR debug/42801 * tree-inline.c (remap_decls):

[Bug debug/42801] C VLAs should use DW_AT_allocated

2010-05-24 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-24 08:52 --- I think DW_AT_allocated would be wrong for C VLAs, they don't have allocated property like Fortran arrays. The problems I see are: 1) for -O0 we don't do any var-tracking, while we should be tracking i) variables

[Bug debug/42801] C VLAs should use DW_AT_allocated

2010-05-24 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-24 14:38 --- Created an attachment (id=20735) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20735action=view) gcc46-pr42801.patch Patch for the -O2 issue. The standard says: Concrete inlined instance entries may omit

[Bug debug/42801] C VLAs should use DW_AT_allocated

2010-05-24 Thread jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com 2010-05-24 19:53 --- Archer counterpart (no patch now): http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11632 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42801

[Bug debug/42801] C VLAs should use DW_AT_allocated

2010-01-19 Thread jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com 2010-01-19 10:57 --- Maybe properly limiting DW_AT_location even in -O0 -g mode would be the same. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42801