------- 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