Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

> On 18 Oct 2017, at 15:59, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >> I'd think so. LANG_TYPE is treated specially in several >> places and Ada debug types are pretty sensitive so this would >> require caution but I don't see/know-of obvious reasons why this >> couldn't be done. > >

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

> I'd think so. LANG_TYPE is treated specially in several > places and Ada debug types are pretty sensitive so this would > require caution but I don't see/know-of obvious reasons why this > couldn't be done. LANG_TYPE is only used in Ada to trigger the specific treatment in

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

> On Oct 17, 2017, at 16:10 , Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > On 10/17/2017 05:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > >> Sorry for not looking at the patch before replying. The patch looks ok >> but shouldn't LANG_TYPE be also handled by the FE? LANG_TYPE itself >> is an odd beast if I may

Re: Unbreak Ada bootstrap (was Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size)

> This change broke Ada bootstrap, because the FE doesn't have any tree_size > langhook, but has one language specific tcc_type tree - > UNCONSTRAINED_ARRAY_TYPE. There should be a requirement to test all languages for this kind of changes. > Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux

Re: Unbreak Ada bootstrap (was Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size)

On October 17, 2017 9:29:46 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:29:40PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >> [Although I filed this as a middle-end bug, it's really a core infra >bug, >> not sure who the best reviewer is] > >> 2017-10-13 Nathan

Unbreak Ada bootstrap (was Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size)

Hi! On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:29:40PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > [Although I filed this as a middle-end bug, it's really a core infra bug, > not sure who the best reviewer is] > 2017-10-13 Nathan Sidwell > > PR middle-end/82546 > gcc/ > * tree.c

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 10/17/2017 05:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > Sorry for not looking at the patch before replying. The patch looks ok > > but shouldn't LANG_TYPE be also handled by the FE? LANG_TYPE itself > > is an odd beast if I may say that - it's only used

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

On 10/17/2017 05:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Sorry for not looking at the patch before replying. The patch looks ok but shouldn't LANG_TYPE be also handled by the FE? LANG_TYPE itself is an odd beast if I may say that - it's only used by the C++ and Ada FEs and the Ada FE does only I

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 10/16/2017 02:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On October 13, 2017 8:29:40 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell > > wrote: > > > > I intend to continue cleaning this up of course. It's not clear to me > > > whether we should cache these

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

On 10/16/2017 02:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On October 13, 2017 8:29:40 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell wrote: I intend to continue cleaning this up of course. It's not clear to me whether we should cache these node sizes in an array, and the way it goes about checking nodes

Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

On October 13, 2017 8:29:40 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >[Although I filed this as a middle-end bug, it's really a core infra >bug, not sure who the best reviewer is] > >In working on tree streaming in the modules branch, I discovered poor >tree node size and hierarchy

[PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

[Although I filed this as a middle-end bug, it's really a core infra bug, not sure who the best reviewer is] In working on tree streaming in the modules branch, I discovered poor tree node size and hierarchy bits. Here's a fix for the first part of that. tree.c (tree_code_size) returns