Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(11126)

Issue 6197069: [Dwarf Patch] Improve pubnames and pubtypes generation.

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
11 years, 11 months ago by saugustine
Modified:
11 years, 9 months ago
Reviewers:
Jason Merrill, Cary, jakub, jason
CC:
gcc-patches_gcc.gnu.org
Base URL:
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/
Visibility:
Public.

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 10

Patch Set 2 : Updated to respond to various email comments from Jason, Diego and Cary #

Patch Set 3 : [Dwarf Patch] Improve pubnames and pubtypes generation. #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+140 lines, -63 lines) Patch
M gcc/common.opt View 1 2 1 chunk +8 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M gcc/doc/invoke.texi View 1 2 1 chunk +4 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M gcc/dwarf2out.c View 1 2 22 chunks +128 lines, -63 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 33
saugustine
The enclosed patch fixes many issues with pubnames and pubtypes. It generates them for many ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-10 16:08:35 UTC) #1
saugustine
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Sterling Augustine <saugustine@google.com> wrote: > The enclosed ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-17 15:49:50 UTC) #2
Jason Merrill
This patch makes a lot of changes to the behavior of .debug_pubnames that I haven't ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-18 22:39:18 UTC) #3
saugustine
Hi Jasaon, Thanks so much for reviewing this patch. I realize it is a lot ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-18 23:34:28 UTC) #4
Cary
>> The entire motivation for this patch, including the proposed new >> attributes is at: ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-21 18:39:51 UTC) #5
saugustine
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote: I'll let Cary ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-22 17:27:27 UTC) #6
Cary
> I would expect the linker to start by processing the pubnames/pubtypes > sections, and ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-22 17:49:01 UTC) #7
Cary
> Yes, but I would expect this table lookup to be faster than going to ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-22 20:04:16 UTC) #8
Cary
>>> Yes, I understand that's broken, but there are no consumers at this >>> point ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-29 22:55:39 UTC) #9
Cary
> At the time we emit the pubtypes table, we have a pointer to the ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-05-30 17:52:27 UTC) #10
saugustine
The enclosed patch updates the earlier patch to address all of the feedback I have ...
11 years, 11 months ago (2012-06-01 17:58:41 UTC) #11
saugustine
On 2012/06/01 17:58:41, saugustine wrote: > The enclosed patch updates the earlier patch to address ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-07 21:25:56 UTC) #12
jason_redhat.com
On 06/01/2012 01:58 PM, Sterling Augustine wrote: > It also adds and documents a new ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-08 18:45:11 UTC) #13
jakub_redhat.com
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:45:09PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 06/01/2012 01:58 ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-08 18:47:17 UTC) #14
Cary
> Hmm, I thought the convention for this sort of flag was to start with ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-08 21:22:39 UTC) #15
saugustine
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant@google.com> wrote: >> Hmm, I ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-08 22:03:15 UTC) #16
saugustine
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Sterling Augustine <saugustine@google.com> wrote: [Regarding generating pubnames] ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-12 18:53:19 UTC) #17
jason_redhat.com
On 06/08/2012 05:22 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: > I kind of prefer -g, but I ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-13 04:32:19 UTC) #18
saugustine
> I lean toward -g myself, since there doesn't seem to be a strong rule ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-13 23:26:02 UTC) #19
jason_redhat.com
On 06/13/2012 04:26 PM, Sterling Augustine wrote: >> I lean toward -g myself, since there ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-14 05:48:08 UTC) #20
saugustine
This is a revised edition of the fix pubnames patch discussed earlier; it addresses all ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-14 17:50:35 UTC) #21
saugustine
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/13/2012 ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-19 17:12:32 UTC) #22
jason_redhat.com
On 06/19/2012 10:12 AM, Sterling Augustine wrote: > + /* If we're putting types in ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-20 00:51:34 UTC) #23
Cary
>> + /* If we're putting types in their own .debug_types sections, >> + the ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-20 21:57:34 UTC) #24
jason_redhat.com
OK. Jason
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-21 00:27:32 UTC) #25
saugustine
Committed as attached. Thanks for your reviews. Sterling gcc/ChangeLog 2012-06-21 Sterling Augustine <saugustine@google.com> Cary Coutant ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-21 18:18:50 UTC) #26
jason_redhat.com
On 06/21/2012 11:18 AM, Sterling Augustine wrote: > Committed as attached. Thanks for your reviews. ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-22 09:35:14 UTC) #27
saugustine
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote: > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/static-data-member2.C ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-22 20:44:38 UTC) #28
Cary
> prune_unused_types marks everything in the pubnames_table. If the > enumerators go in the pubname ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-22 21:15:27 UTC) #29
jason_redhat.com
On 06/22/2012 02:15 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: > But if the consensus turns out to ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-23 04:46:35 UTC) #30
saugustine
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/22/2012 ...
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-26 01:08:15 UTC) #31
jason_redhat.com
OK. Jason
11 years, 10 months ago (2012-06-26 03:35:25 UTC) #32
Cary
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-07-23 20:21:13 UTC) #33
>>> But if the consensus turns out to be that enumerators should be in
>>> pubnames, wouldn't it also be fairly easy to change prune_unused_types
>>> so that it doesn't mark enumerators, and change output_pubnames to
>>> skip enumerators that have been pruned?
>>
>> This makes sense to me.
>
> Enclosed is a patch that does it this way. It requires special-casing
> enumerators in two places.
>
> Personally, it seems cleaner to me just to put them in the pubtypes
> table, but I am happy to do it whichever way you want.

Sterling, I think you were right all along -- this fails with
-fdebug-types-section. When we move an enumeration type out to a
separate types section, the DIE isn't marked when we try to add the
enumerators to the pubnames table, so the enumerators never get added
to the pubnames table. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to get them
added to pubnames in that case; it might be easier to go back to
putting them in pubtypes.

-cary
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b