On 10/29/2013 01:37 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
If we're actually emitting the name now, we need to give it a name different
from the complete constructor. I suppose it makes sense to go with C4/D4 as
in the decloning patch,
Shall we do it in a separate patch? And I suppose binutils also need
to be
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 06:12 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>>
>> ping...
>
>
> Sorry for the slow response.
>
> If we're actually emitting the name now, we need to give it a name different
> from the complete constructor. I suppose it makes sense to go with
On 10/28/2013 06:12 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
ping...
Sorry for the slow response.
If we're actually emitting the name now, we need to give it a name
different from the complete constructor. I suppose it makes sense to go
with C4/D4 as in the decloning patch,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
ping...
Thanks,
Dehao
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 10/11/2013 01:59 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>>>
>>> It's hard to get a testcase without
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=201856 because
>>
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 01:59 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>>
>> It's hard to get a testcase without
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=201856 because
>> none of these *INTERNAL* symbols will be emitted in debug info.
>
>
> Why does tha
On 10/11/2013 01:59 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
It's hard to get a testcase without
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=201856 because
none of these *INTERNAL* symbols will be emitted in debug info.
Why does that change cause one of these symbols to be emitted? As Cary
says, that
> It's hard to get a testcase without
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=201856 because
> none of these *INTERNAL* symbols will be emitted in debug info.
The original code was in there as a form of assembly-time assertion
that the symbol would never get output. Now that you wa
It's hard to get a testcase without
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=201856 because
none of these *INTERNAL* symbols will be emitted in debug info.
Thanks,
Dehao
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> This needs a testcase (compile with -dA and use scan-ass
This needs a testcase (compile with -dA and use scan-assembler; see
other tests in g++.dg/debug/dwarf2).
Jason
ping^2
Thanks,
Dehao
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch disables the C++ frontend to add " *INTERNAL* " suffix to
> maybe_in_charge_destructor/constructor. This is needed because these
> functions could be emitted in the debug info, and we would want to
> dema
ping...
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch disables the C++ frontend to add " *INTERNAL* " suffix to
> maybe_in_charge_destructor/constructor. This is needed because these
> functions could be emitted in the debug info, and we would want to
> demangle these nam
Hi,
This patch disables the C++ frontend to add " *INTERNAL* " suffix to
maybe_in_charge_destructor/constructor. This is needed because these
functions could be emitted in the debug info, and we would want to
demangle these names.
Bootstrapped and passed all regression tests.
OK for trunk?
Than
12 matches
Mail list logo
