Hi All,
I am coding an extension for GCC and am having some difficulty with
pre-compiled headers. I dont know if my understanding of how they work
is completely correct and so my code is getting a segfault.
I have a hook into gimplify_function_tree() and I process functions as
they pass through
On Feb 11, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
I am coding an extension for GCC and am having some difficulty with
pre-compiled headers. I dont know if my understanding of how they
work is completely correct and so my code is getting a segfault.
You _must_ have clean data structures and
Hello
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:46:35 -0800 Mike Stump wrote
> The mental model you should use for PCH is this, when processing a header,
> the compiler does a complete memory walk and dumps it to a file. Upon
> `reading' the pch file, it mmaps all that memory back in, throwing out all
> previousl
what happens with the data previously loaded by a previous pch include file?
I can't figure out why every GTY()-ed global data (extern or static) should
be overwritten at each PCH inclusion, but then maybe I am wrong.
There can be only one PCH inclusion in every compilation.
Paolo
what happens with the data previously loaded by a previous pch include file?
I can't figure out why every GTY()-ed global data (extern or static) should
be overwritten at each PCH inclusion, but then maybe I am wrong.
Couple of big limiations of GCC PCH :
- Only one PCH can be loaded during one
that the way i
was going about it was going to fail.
Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
>> I am coding an extension for GCC and am having some difficulty with
>> pre-compiled headers. I dont know if my understanding of how they work
>> is comp
On Feb 13, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
Sorry for the long email
Complex questions are better long, as that allows for better answers,
which should be more useful to you.
This was based on an idea from Mike in Nov 2006 when i needed to
ensure that the FUNCTION_DECL nodes were no
Thanks for the response.
>> * Is it possible to explicitly free garbage collected memory if i know i
>> will not be needing it any more
>
> Yes, ggc_free.[1]
>
> 1 - Some people think that all the savings you'd get from this aren't
> work the pain of doing it, if you have to track down any over
On Feb 13, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
There is no "additional" pain in doing this as I have already
developed my code using manual malloc/free in such a way that i am
reasonably sure there are no leaks, or double free calls or the like.
No, the pain would be a dangling pointer.
Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
>> There is no "additional" pain in doing this as I have already
>> developed my code using manual malloc/free in such a way that i am
>> reasonably sure there are no leaks, or double free calls or the like.
>
> No, the pain wou
On Feb 12, 2007, at 10:42 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
A big thanks for the explanation, which is something I partly
guessed, but which leaves me in a deep trouble :-)
Glad to turn on the flashlight so that you may see the hole. I hope
you know which way to dig now. :-)
I can't figure
11 matches
Mail list logo
