I can image a few ways to go from here:
- leave as is, fix this when it really bothers us (risk:
exchange a known
problem for unknown hard-to-debug and/or hard-to-reproduce
problems)
- instrument if_marked functions like the one for
value_expr_for_decl to
assert if the from field is live
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Tom de Vries tjvr...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hi Richard,
I can image a few ways to go from here:
- leave as is, fix this when it really bothers us (risk: exchange a known
problem for unknown hard-to-debug and/or hard-to-reproduce problems)
- instrument if_marked
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Tom de Vries tjvr...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hi,
The tree_map_base_marked_p checks ggc_marked_p on the from field. During
ggc_scan_cache_tab, if the from field is live, also the to field is
marked
live.
I wrote some code to do sanity testing and found a similar
Interesting. My first reaction is that this is an invalid use of the
garbage collector. I think there is really only one valid function
that can be used as an if_marked function: one which checks
ggc_marked_p on the structure.
Then how about tree_map_base_marked_p, the if_marked
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Tom de Vries tjvr...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Interesting. My first reaction is that this is an invalid use of the
garbage collector. I think there is really only one valid function
that can be used as an if_marked function: one which checks
ggc_marked_p on the
Hi,
The tree_map_base_marked_p checks ggc_marked_p on the from field.
During
ggc_scan_cache_tab, if the from field is live, also the to field
is marked
live.
I wrote some code to do sanity testing and found a similar
scenario as
before:
- a register attribute is not marked live during
Hi,
In the context of bug 31230, I have a question about the if_marked
construct.
[DOC http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/GTY-Options.html]
if_marked (expression)
Suppose you want some kinds of object to be unique, and so you
put them in a hash table. If garbage collection marks the
Tom de Vries tjvr...@xs4all.nl writes:
static int prop(const_tree type)
{
return type == A;
}
static int type_hash_marked_p (const void *p) {
const_tree const type = ((const struct type_hash *) p)-type;
return ggc_marked_p (type) || prop (type);
}
I would like to question your
On Jun 23, 2010, at 16:49, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tom de Vries tjvr...@xs4all.nl writes:
static int prop(const_tree type)
{
return type == A;
}
static int type_hash_marked_p (const void *p) {
const_tree const type = ((const struct type_hash *) p)-type;
return ggc_marked_p (type) || prop
Tom de Vries tjvr...@xs4all.nl writes:
What I am really trying to do, is a bootstrap debug build of 4.3.5.
However, I ran into bug 31230. I minimized the testcase, did an
analysis, created a naive patch to test my hypothesis, tested the
patch and put it in the bug report. Now I'm looking for
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 08:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tom de Vries tjvr...@xs4all.nl writes:
What I am really trying to do, is a bootstrap debug build of 4.3.5.
However, I ran into bug 31230. I minimized the testcase, did an
analysis, created a naive patch to test my hypothesis,
Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 08:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tom de Vries tjvr...@xs4all.nl writes:
What I am really trying to do, is a bootstrap debug build of 4.3.5.
However, I ran into bug 31230. I minimized the testcase, did an
On Jun 23, 2010, at 19:40, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 08:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tom de Vries tjvr...@xs4all.nl writes:
What I am really trying to do, is a bootstrap debug build of 4.3.5.
However, I ran into
13 matches
Mail list logo
