------- 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

Reply via email to