On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 02:42:15PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 02:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >@@ -8476,7 +8498,16 @@ size_of_die (dw_die_ref die)
> > size += DWARF_OFFSET_SIZE;
> > break;
> > case dw_val_class_range_list:
> >- size += DWARF_OFFSET_SIZE;
> >+ if (dwarf_split_debug_info
> >+ && dwarf_version >= 5
> >+ && a->dw_attr_val.val_entry != RELOCATED_OFFSET)
>
> This test, here and in value_format, should be factored out into a separate
> function with a comment explaining why you check dwarf_split_debug_info.
Ok. Another option would be to call value_format in size_of_die
in this case and put the comment into value_format.
> In general there's a lot of code duplication between the existing ranges
> support and the new rnglist support; even the new vector is a superset of
> the old one. Why duplicate the code rather than modify it?
The point was to conserve memory for the -gdwarf-{2,3,4} case.
The old table needs just 4 bytes per entry, the new one 16 bytes per entry.
The code duplication because of that is mainly in
add_high_low_attributes - 24 lines duplicated.
At least while -gdwarf-4 is the default that looked to me like acceptable
cost, but if you disagree, I can surely try to just grow the original
table and use it for all versions.
Jakub
