> Fixed the problem, and retested. New patch attached.
OK for the google/gcc-4_8 branch. Thanks!
-cary
Fixed the problem, and retested. New patch attached.
Dehao
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>> I've updated the patch. Bootstrapped and passed all regression test.
>>>
>>> OK for google-4_8?
>
> Index: gcc/Makefile.in
> ===
>> I've updated the patch. Bootstrapped and passed all regression test.
>>
>> OK for google-4_8?
Index: gcc/Makefile.in
===
--- gcc/Makefile.in (revision 199127)
+++ gcc/Makefile.in (working copy)
@@ -1470,7 +1470,7 @@ OBJS-libcommon
forgot to attache the patch...
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> I've updated the patch. Bootstrapped and passed all regression test.
>
> OK for google-4_8?
>
> Thanks,
> Dehao
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>> Cool. So shall we get this patch in gc
I've updated the patch. Bootstrapped and passed all regression test.
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> Cool. So shall we get this patch in gcc-4_8 first, and after you
>> change to encode discriminator in adhoc_locus map in trunk, we then
> Cool. So shall we get this patch in gcc-4_8 first, and after you
> change to encode discriminator in adhoc_locus map in trunk, we then
> backport it to 4_8 again?
Sure, sounds good.
-cary
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>> I think the problem is with same_line_p. It's using expand_location to
>>> test whether two locations refer to the same line, but expand_location
>>> always unwinds the macro stack so that it's looking at the line number
>>> of the macro exp
>> I think the problem is with same_line_p. It's using expand_location to
>> test whether two locations refer to the same line, but expand_location
>> always unwinds the macro stack so that it's looking at the line number
>> of the macro expansion point. That means that every token in the macro
>>
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> The warning was attributed to the wrong lineno. Looks like
>> discriminator does not work well when it coexists with macros.
>
> I think the problem is with same_line_p. It's using expand_location to
> test whether two locations refer to the
> The warning was attributed to the wrong lineno. Looks like
> discriminator does not work well when it coexists with macros.
I think the problem is with same_line_p. It's using expand_location to
test whether two locations refer to the same line, but expand_location
always unwinds the macro stack
>> I think warn_uninit in tree-ssa.c needs one of these:
>>
>> location = map_discriminator_location (location);
>>
>> There may still be other places where calls to
>> linemap_resolve_location have been added since this patch was
>> originally developed.
>
> Yeah, I've added location = map_discr
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> The warning was attributed to the wrong lineno. Looks like
>> discriminator does not work well when it coexists with macros.
>
> I think warn_uninit in tree-ssa.c needs one of these:
>
> location = map_discriminator_location (location);
>
>
> The warning was attributed to the wrong lineno. Looks like
> discriminator does not work well when it coexists with macros.
I think warn_uninit in tree-ssa.c needs one of these:
location = map_discriminator_location (location);
There may still be other places where calls to
linemap_resolve_l
The warning was attributed to the wrong lineno. Looks like
discriminator does not work well when it coexists with macros.
Dehao
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> Bootstrapped. It will fail gcc.dg/uninit-6-O0.c, which also fails in
>> google-4_7 branch.
>
> It'd be nice to f
> Bootstrapped. It will fail gcc.dg/uninit-6-O0.c, which also fails in
> google-4_7 branch.
It'd be nice to fix this -- what's the nature of the failure?
-cary
On 2013-05-14 22:46 , Dehao Chen wrote:
This patch ports r173196 from google-main and r190269 from google-4_7
to add discriminator support in google-4_8 branch.
Bootstrapped. It will fail gcc.dg/uninit-6-O0.c, which also fails in
google-4_7 branch.
OK to backport to google-4_8 branch?
If ther
This patch ports r173196 from google-main and r190269 from google-4_7
to add discriminator support in google-4_8 branch.
Bootstrapped. It will fail gcc.dg/uninit-6-O0.c, which also fails in
google-4_7 branch.
OK to backport to google-4_8 branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/gimple-pretty-print.c
===
17 matches
Mail list logo
