Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On 05/24/2017 03:02 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: I think it would be premature to remove PCH from GCC 8. The Modules specification is far from stable, and moving current PCH users to Modules will take significant work (at least if we get something like the current draft rather than the relatively

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:10:23AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >> On 05/19/2017 10:05 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> >> > hwi cannot be the root cause of the problem, >> > because it can only be long_integer_type_node

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:10:23AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 05/19/2017 10:05 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > > hwi cannot be the root cause of the problem, > > because it can only be long_integer_type_node > > or long_long_integer_type_node, otherwise > > an error would be triggered. > >

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> On 05/19/2017 11:26 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> >>> On 05/19/17 19:05, Dominique d'Humières wrote: Hi Bernd, Your patches are

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 05/19/2017 11:26 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> >> On 05/19/17 19:05, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bernd, >>> >>> Your patches are causing troubles when I try to do "incremental updates >>> »: >>> >>> After

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On 05/19/2017 11:26 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: On 05/19/17 19:05, Dominique d'Humières wrote: Hi Bernd, Your patches are causing troubles when I try to do "incremental updates »: After revision r248290 it fails with ../../work/gcc/cp/init.c:4916:10: fatal error: gt-cp-init.h: No such file or

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > >> Le 19 mai 2017 à 19:26, Bernd Edlinger a écrit : >> >> No, unfortunately it looks like incremental does not work in this case. >> >> You can try to remove gcc/s-gtyp-input, maybe it

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

> Le 19 mai 2017 à 19:26, Bernd Edlinger a écrit : > > No, unfortunately it looks like incremental does not work in this case. > > You can try to remove gcc/s-gtyp-input, maybe it un-breaks your > build. However, I gave up at that point and did a full bootstrap >

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On 05/19/17 19:05, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > Hi Bernd, > > Your patches are causing troubles when I try to do "incremental updates »: > > After revision r248290 it fails with > > ../../work/gcc/cp/init.c:4916:10: fatal error: gt-cp-init.h: No such file or > directory > #include

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

Hi Bernd, Your patches are causing troubles when I try to do "incremental updates »: After revision r248290 it fails with ../../work/gcc/cp/init.c:4916:10: fatal error: gt-cp-init.h: No such file or directory #include "gt-cp-init.h » and after r248242 with

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On 05/19/17 16:10, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 05/19/2017 10:05 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> hwi cannot be the root cause of the problem, >> because it can only be long_integer_type_node >> or long_long_integer_type_node, otherwise >> an error would be triggered. > > that's the error I made

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On 05/19/2017 10:05 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: hwi cannot be the root cause of the problem, because it can only be long_integer_type_node or long_long_integer_type_node, otherwise an error would be triggered. that's the error I made with the static fns. PCH moves things around, so anything

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On 05/19/17 09:51, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2017, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> unfortunately the first patch was still insufficient. I identified many >> more relatively new places where static tree objects are invisible to >> GC. >> >> Nathan, whatever you are doing,

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On 05/19/2017 03:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote: you are commoning 'hwi' here. Also a bad (very short) name for a global (even if static). I'll leave review to Nathan anyway. IMHO the C FE changes are obvious, with the fixing of the hwi name I guess. I'll go rename fn1..6 in the C++ FE once

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi, > > unfortunately the first patch was still insufficient. I identified many > more relatively new places where static tree objects are invisible to > GC. > > Nathan, whatever you are doing, please do it a bit more slowly, thanks. > > Bootstrap

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

On 05/18/2017 04:40 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Hi, unfortunately the first patch was still insufficient. I identified many more relatively new places where static tree objects are invisible to GC. Hm, I didn't think the fns in except.c etc needed to be GTY'd because they'd still be

[PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

Hi, unfortunately the first patch was still insufficient. I identified many more relatively new places where static tree objects are invisible to GC. Nathan, whatever you are doing, please do it a bit more slowly, thanks. Bootstrap and reg-testing on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu in progress. Is it OK