https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 8 14:34:49 2019
New Revision: 268698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268698=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-02-08 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2019-02-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 22 09:54:14 2018
New Revision: 266372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266372=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-11-22 Richard Biener
PR lto/87229
PR lto/88112
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
>
> --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> (> So short of avoiding the streaming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
(> So short of avoiding the streaming of trees that are only targets
> of abstract origins (the idea of streaming those as references to
> DIEs rather than references to trees) a pragmatic "fix" is to
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
>
> --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, ebotcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Anyhow, if we do not want to clear those sizepos we could do
> a walk_tree () looking for non-streamable parts and if found
> reset it to plain PLACEHOLDER_EXPR. Note that I am also looking
> for a fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
>
> --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > It's a type that only lives in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It's a type that only lives in the abstract origin which is never output,
> so the FE somewhat has a point in not needing to gimplify it (similar
> to the Ada case with gloBal types that cannot be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
>
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > Index: gcc/tree.c
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I am not sure I fully understand the problem here, but
> why we end up streaming ungimplified type at first place?
Because you cannot gimplify a type declared at file scope.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Index: gcc/tree.c
> ===
> --- gcc/tree.c (revision 266308)
> +++ gcc/tree.c (working copy)
> @@ -5260,7 +5260,7 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> Honza? Eric?
I am not sure I fully understand the problem here, but
why we end up streaming ungimplified type at first place?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88112
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
16 matches
Mail list logo
