------- Comment #27 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 09:46
-------
(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > Well, just pretending that a particular parameter never existed isn't
> > acceptable from a debugging standpoint; I think we need to have a
> > separate modified decl which points back to the original unmodified decl
> > with DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN.
> >
> > Beyond that, it might be possible to avoid much copying by just moving
> > the function body over from the original decl to the modified one.
>
> That hints at a possible fix? Instead of versioning the function just
> version the DECL (thus basically perform the DECL creation part of
> versioning only). It requires fixing up call stmts of course, but that
> shouldn't be too hard.
>
> Martin - can you try this?
>
I'll see what I can do.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2009-12-15 21:54:02 |2010-02-09 09:46:42
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42336
