On 10/2/18 11:14 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 10/2/18 5:32 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 9/12/18 6:39 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> This is follow-up of: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-08/msg00007.html >>> >>> I've chosen to implement that with new DECL_CXX_LAMBDA_FUNCTION that >>> uses an empty bit in tree_function_decl. >>> >>> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression >>> tests. >>> >>> Ready for trunk? >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2018-09-12 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >>> >>> PR gcov-profile/86109 >>> * coverage.c (coverage_begin_function): Do not >>> mark lambdas as artificial. >>> * tree-core.h (struct GTY): Remove tm_clone_flag >>> and introduce new lambda_function. >>> * tree.h (DECL_CXX_LAMBDA_FUNCTION): New macro. >>> >>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2018-09-12 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >>> >>> PR gcov-profile/86109 >>> * parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt): >>> Set DECL_CXX_LAMBDA_FUNCTION for lambdas. >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2018-09-12 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >>> >>> PR gcov-profile/86109 >>> * g++.dg/gcov/pr86109.C: New test. > > Hi. > > Thanks for the review. > >> So the concern here is C++-isms bleeding into the language independent >> nodes. I think a name change from DECL_CXX_LAMBDA_FUNCTION to something >> else would be enough to go forward. > > Agree, well, then I would suggest to use DECL_LAMBDA_FUNCTION. The concept > of lambda functions is quite common in other programming languages. Agreed and OK with that change.
jeff
