On 12-05-18 18:14 , Richard Henderson wrote:
On 05/18/12 05:06, Richard Guenther wrote:
Can you locate those? I mean, most uses look like
#define DECL_NONSHAREABLE(NODE) \
(TREE_CHECK2 (NODE, VAR_DECL, \
RESULT_DECL)->decl_common.decl_nonshareable_flag)
thus they only dereference the result, not assign it anywhere.
const_tree vs tree for NODE is the difference between the
entire expression being writable, or read-only.
DECL_NONSHARABLE (d) = true;
Right. Returning a const_tree means that you can't write to anything in
the resulting value. To answer richi's original question, this produces
~9,000 syntax errors in gcc/*.o.
So, I would like to figure out what to do with this. We have a
usability problem wrt deubgging that I would like to fix. The only way
we have of using all the tree accessor macros from GDB is to convert the
checks into functions (converting the actual accessor macros would also
work, but that's a different story).
Now that we have the ability to skip functions in gdb, making tree
checking into functions should not be a problem. Additionally, we can
make gdb skip other common functions (like tree_code_length).
We can do this in trunk today using a variant of Lawrence's original
patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01649.html). This
uses no C++ features, though it weakens type checking by removing away
constness.
In the cxx-conversion branch, we can use overloads, which will DTRT with
const.
My question is, what do folks prefer?
a) The trunk patch today, using no C++ features.
b) Wait for the cxx-conversion variant?
Incidentally, making these expression statements into out-of-line
functions saves about 3% in the final binary size, but increases compile
time by about 10% (tested on several large .o files in bld/gcc), so we
likely want to keep them as inline functions.
Diego.
