On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 04:15:12PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> The r13-6577 change to use tree_code_type_tmpl in earlier C++ dialects broke
> gdbhooks, which expects tree_code_type to always be available. I considered
> trying to make gdbhooks more robust, but it seemed simpler to define
> tree_code_type as a reference to the template. This still ends up with a
> definition of the reference in each translation unit, but that's allowed by
> the
> ODR because it always refers to the same entity, and is much smaller than
> having the whole table in each TU.
>
> PR plugins/108634
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * tree-core.h (tree_code_type, tree_code_length):
> Define even without inline variable support.
> * tree.h (TREE_CODE_CLASS, TREE_CODE_LENGTH):
> Only one definition.
I think it would be better to change gdbhooks.py to match what the code
does.
We should adjust the
# extern const enum tree_code_class tree_code_type[];
# #define TREE_CODE_CLASS(CODE) tree_code_type[(int) (CODE)]
comment because that isn't true even for new bootstrap compiler.
And, I just wonder if
val_tree_code_type = gdb.parse_and_eval('tree_code_type')
couldn't be replaced with
try:
val_tree_code_type = gdb.parse_and_eval('tree_code_type')
except;
val_tree_code_type =
gdb.parse_and_eval('tree_code_type_tmpl<0>::tree_code_type')
or so.
Jakub
