On April 28, 2015 11:05:44 AM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>Hi,
>I will fix the free count issue - my internet access in China was bit
>sporadic
>and I hoped you will know why the count seem to disagree between PPC64
>and Linux
>builds. In meantime PPC64 stopped to build for me.
>>
>> (early) dwarf2out is a good place, likewise verifying right after
>> free-lang-data. I agree that LTO type merging is also a good place.
>>
>> I hope we get early dwarf2out merged soon and can enable
>free-lang-data
>> also for non-LTO compilation.
>>
>> > LTO-Boostrapped/regtested x86_64-linux without Ada. I am doing full
>run on
>> > PPC64, but it fails on unrelated libgmp miscomplation I proably
>need to track down
>> > first.
>> >
>> > OK if testing passes?
>>
>> Please make sure to test _all_ languages (all,ada,obj-c++,go) and
>also
>> include multilibs in testing (thus -m64/-m32).
>>
>> You don't verify that TYPE_CANONICAL is consistent nor that
>TYPE_CANONICAL
>> doesn't form a tree (TYPE_CANONICAL (t) == TYPE_CANONICAL
>(TYPE_CANONICAL
>> (t))).
>
>Yep, I have this one in queue, but of course it fires, thus it is not
>in the initial patch.
>> > +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
>> > + verify_type (expr);
>> > +#endif
>>
>> As said I think that doing this after free-lang-data is better. Like
>> here:
>>
>> /* Traverse every type found freeing its language data. */
>> FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (fld.types, i, t)
>> free_lang_data_in_type (t);
>>
>> do another loop verifying types.
>
>OK, we however build new types in middle end
>(ipa-icf/ipa-split/ipa-sra),
>so perhaps we can check on both places?
>>
>> > stream_write_tree (ob, TYPE_SIZE (expr), ref_p);
>> > stream_write_tree (ob, TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (expr), ref_p);
>> > stream_write_tree (ob, TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (expr), ref_p);
>> > Index: dwarf2out.c
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- dwarf2out.c (revision 222391)
>> > +++ dwarf2out.c (working copy)
>> > @@ -21264,6 +21264,11 @@ dwarf2out_decl (tree decl)
>> > {
>> > dw_die_ref context_die = comp_unit_die ();
>> >
>> > +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
>> > + if (TREE_TYPE (decl))
>> > + verify_type (TREE_TYPE (decl));
>> > +#endif
>> > +
>>
>> Hmm, this has the chance to verify types multiple times, no?
>Wouldn't
>> gen_type_die_with_usage be a better place to verify the type we
>create
>> the DIE for?
>
>That looks better indeed. The checks are not paritcularly expensive
>though.
+ if (((TREE_CODE (t) == ENUMERAL_TYPE && COMPLETE_TYPE_P (t))
+ || TREE_CODE (t) == INTEGER_TYPE
+ || TREE_CODE (t) == BOOLEAN_TYPE
+ || TREE_CODE (t) == REAL_TYPE
+ || TREE_CODE (t) == FIXED_POINT_TYPE)
+ && (TYPE_MAX_VALUE (t) != TYPE_MAX_VALUE (tv)
+ || TYPE_MAX_VALUE (t) != TYPE_MAX_VALUE (tv)))
+ {
+ error ("type variant has different TYPE_MIN_VALUE");
+ debug_tree (tv);
+ return false;
+ }
The second || check of TYPE_MAX_VALUE should probably be something else, maybe
TYPE_MIN_VALUE ?
Why don't we warn about such useless || where both hands are identical? :)
Thanks,
>
>Honza
