Hi, On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:14:07PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > > That's Toms other approach with supporting multi-step dependencies. As I > > have tried to argue in the other thread, I think this idea is > > fundamentally broken and just hides real bugs, and I don't see why this > > would be different for this particular hash-map. If the value of this > > hash refers to a decl that isn't mentioned anywhere else except from this > > hash entry, then it has no meaning anymore, and hence shouldn't itself be > > part of the hash anymore. > > You mean key or value? The value of course can mention various trees that > aren't referenced from anywhere else, and it has meaning. No, I really meant value. If you think it has meaning, then tell me what it is for DECL_VALUE_EXPR (X) to be 'Y', if Y is nowhere else mentioned, neither in code, nor in local-decls, nor in globals, or anywhere else that would be reachable by GC. Ciao, Michael.
