On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:41 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 07/04/2020 14:34, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Erick Ochoa wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for this lead! It is almost exactly what I need. I do have one more
> >> question about this. It seems that the types
Hello,
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Erick Ochoa wrote:
> > So, when you want to compare types use useless_type_conversion_p (for
> > equivalence you need useless(a,b) && useless(b,a)). In particular,
> > for record types T it's TYPE_CANONICAL(T) that needs to be
> > pointer-equal. (I.e. you could
On 07/04/2020 14:34, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Erick Ochoa wrote:
Thanks for this lead! It is almost exactly what I need. I do have one more
question about this. It seems that the types obtained via
FOR_EACH_FUNCTION_ARGS and TREE_TYPE are different pointers when
Hello,
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Erick Ochoa wrote:
> Thanks for this lead! It is almost exactly what I need. I do have one more
> question about this. It seems that the types obtained via
> FOR_EACH_FUNCTION_ARGS and TREE_TYPE are different pointers when compiled with
> -flto.
>
> What do I mean by
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:54 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>
> Hello Micheal,
>
> Thanks for this lead! It is almost exactly what I need. I do have one
> more question about this. It seems that the types obtained via
> FOR_EACH_FUNCTION_ARGS and TREE_TYPE are different pointers when
> compiled with -flto.
Hello Micheal,
Thanks for this lead! It is almost exactly what I need. I do have one
more question about this. It seems that the types obtained via
FOR_EACH_FUNCTION_ARGS and TREE_TYPE are different pointers when
compiled with -flto.
What do I mean by this? Consider the following code:
Hello,
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020, Erick Ochoa wrote:
> +for (tree parm = DECL_ARGUMENTS (undefined_function->decl); parm; parm =
> DECL_CHAIN (parm))
> + {
> + tree type = TREE_TYPE(parm);
> + if (dump_file) fprintf(dump_file, "I want the type, do I have it?
> %s\n", type ? "true"
On 13.03.20 00:44, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:31 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to find out the arguments of functions which are undefined
during LTO.
Basically:
gcc_assert(in_lto_p && !cnode->definition)
// Do we have arguments?
On 12.03.20 08:48, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hello,
Hello,
I am trying to find out the arguments of functions which are undefined
during LTO.
Basically:
gcc_assert(in_lto_p && !cnode->definition)
// Do we have arguments?
gcc_assert(DECL_ARGUMENTS(cnode->decl)) // fails
// No, we don't.
As I
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:31 PM Erick Ochoa
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to find out the arguments of functions which are undefined
> during LTO.
>
> Basically:
>
> gcc_assert(in_lto_p && !cnode->definition)
> // Do we have arguments?
> gcc_assert(DECL_ARGUMENTS(cnode->decl)) // fails
> //
> Hello,
Hello,
>
> I am trying to find out the arguments of functions which are undefined
> during LTO.
>
> Basically:
>
> gcc_assert(in_lto_p && !cnode->definition)
> // Do we have arguments?
> gcc_assert(DECL_ARGUMENTS(cnode->decl)) // fails
> // No, we don't.
>
> As I understand it,
Hello,
I am trying to find out the arguments of functions which are undefined
during LTO.
Basically:
gcc_assert(in_lto_p && !cnode->definition)
// Do we have arguments?
gcc_assert(DECL_ARGUMENTS(cnode->decl)) // fails
// No, we don't.
As I understand it, functions which are not defined are
12 matches
Mail list logo
