Hi,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:37:48PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:30:47PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
On Wed, Aug
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:30:47PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 05:21:04PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 04:57:41PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
-
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:30:47PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 05:21:04PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Fri,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 05:21:04PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 04:57:41PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
- ada/gcc-interface/utils.c:rest_of_subprog_body_compilation calls
dump_function which in turns calls dump_function_to_file which calls
push_cfun. But
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 05:21:04PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 04:57:41PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
- ada/gcc-interface/utils.c:rest_of_subprog_body_compilation calls
dump_function which
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 04:57:41PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
- ada/gcc-interface/utils.c:rest_of_subprog_body_compilation calls
dump_function which in turns calls dump_function_to_file which calls
push_cfun.
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
If dumping a statement needs the containing function then we need to
either pass that down, provide a way to get from statement to function,
or stop requiring the function. Making the hash global is choice three
(deallocating the hash
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
If dumping a statement needs the containing function then we need to
either pass that down, provide a way to get from statement to function,
or stop requiring the function.
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
I like this approach, particularly since it would be used in contexts
where there is no simpler scheme. I'm not crazy about overloading
unused fields, but it's fine if we wrap it around a special accessor. I
suppose we could also make
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
I like this approach, particularly since it would be used in contexts
where there is no simpler scheme. I'm not crazy about overloading
unused fields, but it's fine if we wrap
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 04:57:41PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
- ada/gcc-interface/utils.c:rest_of_subprog_body_compilation calls
dump_function which in turns calls dump_function_to_file which calls
push_cfun. But Ada front end has its idea of the
current_function_decl and
- ada/gcc-interface/utils.c:rest_of_subprog_body_compilation calls
dump_function which in turns calls dump_function_to_file which calls
push_cfun. But Ada front end has its idea of the
current_function_decl and there is no cfun which is an inconsistency
which makes push_cfun assert
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi,
I've always found it silly that in order to change the current
function one has to call push_cfun and pop_cfun which conveniently set
and restore the value of cfun and in addition to that also set
current_function_decl
13 matches
Mail list logo
