On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:02:41PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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.
Or
val_tree_code_type = gdb.parse_and_eval('tree_code_type')
if val_tree_code_type == 0:
val_tree_code_type =
gdb.parse_and_eval('tree_code_type_tmpl<0>::tree_code_type')
Whatever works.
Jakub
