On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Richard.
>
> I'm chasing my tail here looking at an LTO + debug problem, and for the life
> of me I can't figure out how all this partition business affects a symbol's
> `analyzed' bit. Anyways... the documentation for all these functions is
> wrong.
>
> Can you look at this patch and tell me if it makes sense? I feel a bit
> uneasy committing under the obvious rule, since I don't entirely understand
> the partitioning thing.
>
> Would anyone mind me fixing this on mainline? It's just a comment fix.
Yeah, it's ok for trunk.
> Also, since you seem to understand all this best, can you suggest some
> better wording for the lto_encoder_entry comments?
>
> /* Entry of LTO symtab encoder. */
> struct lto_encoder_entry
> {
> symtab_node *node;
> /* Is the node in this partition (i.e. ltrans of this partition will
> be responsible for outputting it)? */
> unsigned int in_partition:1;
> /* Do we encode body in this partition? */
> unsigned int body:1;
> /* Do we encode initializer in this partition?
> For example the readonly variable initializers are encoded to aid
> constant folding even if they are not in the partition. */
> unsigned int initializer:1;
> };
>
> Whenever I get to the LTO part of this project, I promise to start
> documenting things better. This whole thing is a mystery.
Well - mostly to me as well ;) I'll let Honza answer this...
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks.
> Aldy
