On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 05:21:56PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The ggc_set_mark call in gt_value_expr_mark_2 is actually wrong, that
> > just marks the VAR_DECL itself, but doesn't mark the subtrees of it (type
> > etc.). So, I think we need to test
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 05:21:56PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The ggc_set_mark call in gt_value_expr_mark_2 is actually wrong, that
> just marks the VAR_DECL itself, but doesn't mark the subtrees of it (type
> etc.). So, I think we need to test gcc_marked_p for whether it is marked
> or not, if
Hi!
The ggc_set_mark call in gt_value_expr_mark_2 is actually wrong, that
just marks the VAR_DECL itself, but doesn't mark the subtrees of it (type
etc.). So, I think we need to test gcc_marked_p for whether it is marked
or not, if not marked walk the DECL_VALUE_EXPR and then gt_ggc_mx mark
the V
