Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/15/16 10:42, Jason Merrill wrote: OK, let's go ahead with this. Thanks for committing Jakub. I've just moved the changelog to cp/ChangeLog though. nathan

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

OK, let's go ahead with this. Jason

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/15/16 05:57, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:43:26AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: On 04/14/2016 09:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 04/13/16 15:41, Jason Merrill wrote: The fini_constexpr stuff is

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:43:26AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On 04/14/2016 09:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >> >On 04/13/16 15:41, Jason Merrill wrote: >> > >> >>The fini_constexpr stuff is OK immediately. >> > >> >As

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:43:26AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/14/2016 09:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > >On 04/13/16 15:41, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > >>The fini_constexpr stuff is OK immediately. > > > >As those two objects are currently GTY((deletable)) I don't think that's >

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/14/2016 09:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 04/13/16 15:41, Jason Merrill wrote: The fini_constexpr stuff is OK immediately. As those two objects are currently GTY((deletable)) I don't think that's necessary. Have I missed something? True, I suppose it doesn't make much difference.

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/13/16 15:41, Jason Merrill wrote: The fini_constexpr stuff is OK immediately. As those two objects are currently GTY((deletable)) I don't think that's necessary. Have I missed something? The rest of the patch is OK if Jakub thinks it should go in, but if his approach addresses the

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/13/2016 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: This patch builds from Jason's proto-patch in comment #26. As Jason discovered, that led to link problems with gt_ggc_mx (tree_node *&) when building cc1. Making 'hash_map' GC-able caused gengtype to put the GC-walkers for tree

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

This patch builds from Jason's proto-patch in comment #26. As Jason discovered, that led to link problems with gt_ggc_mx (tree_node *&) when building cc1. Making 'hash_map' GC-able caused gengtype to put the GC-walkers for tree into constexpr.c. No idea why. That's also what

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/12/2016 04:58 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Well, I had a patch all ready, but when writing it up, I discovered the logic behind comment #26 is wrong. Specifically, Jason's proto-patch makes the fn_copy_table GCable, but keeps the constexpr_call_table GC-deletable. The logic is that if we

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

Well, I had a patch all ready, but when writing it up, I discovered the logic behind comment #26 is wrong. Specifically, Jason's proto-patch makes the fn_copy_table GCable, but keeps the constexpr_call_table GC-deletable. The logic is that if we need to recreate a particular constexpr call,

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/12/2016 11:19 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:53:22AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: It doesn't seem that dangerous to me. The decls are only used within constexpr evaluation, they never escape. The uids can be used in hashing, folding, for the various on the side

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/12/16 11:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:53:22AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: It doesn't seem that dangerous to me. The decls are only used within constexpr evaluation, they never escape. The uids can be used in hashing, folding, for the various on the side tables

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:53:22AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > It doesn't seem that dangerous to me. The decls are only used within > constexpr evaluation, they never escape. The uids can be used in hashing, folding, for the various on the side tables (value-expr, debug-expr, ...). > >Or

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/12/2016 10:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:28:39AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: 1) I think this approach is not globally best. We're inventing another memory-usage related heuristic, rather than relying on the already available GC machinery. That's why I've gone

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:28:39AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > >>>1) I think this approach is not globally best. We're inventing another > >>>memory-usage related heuristic, rather than relying on the already > >>>available GC machinery. That's why I've gone with a hard coded value > >>>for

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/12/2016 09:55 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Most of the conversation appears to be happening in bugzilla ... On 04/12/16 09:18, Jason Merrill wrote: I still think that -fcompare-debug being sensitive to exact DECL_UID is the real bug here. Plausible, IIUC Jakub's suggested patches for

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:55:47AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > Most of the conversation appears to be happening in bugzilla ... > > On 04/12/16 09:18, Jason Merrill wrote: > > >I still think that -fcompare-debug being sensitive to exact DECL_UID is the > >real > >bug here. > > Plausible,

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

Most of the conversation appears to be happening in bugzilla ... On 04/12/16 09:18, Jason Merrill wrote: I still think that -fcompare-debug being sensitive to exact DECL_UID is the real bug here. Plausible, IIUC Jakub's suggested patches for that? If we go that way, I think most of the

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On 04/11/2016 03:42 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: This proto patch addresses 70594, where the constexpr machinery causes differences in -fcompare-debug checking. I'm looking for initial comments about the approach this patch is taking. As described in the comments of

Re: [PATCH] c++/70594 debug info differences

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > This proto patch addresses 70594, where the constexpr machinery causes > differences in -fcompare-debug checking. I'm looking for initial comments > about the approach this patch is taking. > > As described in the comments