Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patchv2] compile: Fix crash on cv-qualified self-reference
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:24:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150701132406.GA13975@host1.jankratochvil.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86lhf0p1hf.fsf@gmail.com>

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:21:32 +0200, Yao Qi wrote:
> Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > +  quals = 0;
> > +  if (TYPE_CONST (type))
> > +    quals |= GCC_QUALIFIER_CONST;
> > +  if (TYPE_VOLATILE (type))
> > +    quals |= GCC_QUALIFIER_VOLATILE;
> > +  if (TYPE_RESTRICT (type))
> > +    quals |= GCC_QUALIFIER_RESTRICT;
> > +  result = C_CTX (context)->c_ops->build_qualified_type (C_CTX (context),
> > +							 result, quals);
> >    insert_type (context, type, result);
> 
> Can we use convert_qualified instead?  I find code we added here is
> quite similar to convert_qualified.

Not directly to use convert_qualified() but convert_qualified() could be split
in halves and one half could be used here, I agree.


> >    for (i = 0; i < TYPE_NFIELDS (type); ++i)
> > @@ -329,10 +342,13 @@ static gcc_type
> >  convert_type_basic (struct compile_c_instance *context, struct type *type)
> >  {
> >    /* If we are converting a qualified type, first convert the
> > -     unqualified type and then apply the qualifiers.  */
> > +     unqualified type and then apply the qualifiers, except for the
> > +     types handling qualifiers on their own.  */
> >    if ((TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAGS (type) & (TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_CONST
> >  				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_VOLATILE
> > -				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_RESTRICT)) != 0)
> > +				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_RESTRICT)) != 0
> > +      && (TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_STRUCT
> > +	  && TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_UNION))
> >      return convert_qualified (context, type);
> 
> It looks right to me, however, isn't cleaner to do in this way?
> 
>    /* Comments on why we do this first */
>    if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_STRUCT
>        || TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_UNION)
>        return convert_struct_or_union (context, type);
> 
>   /* If we are converting a qualified type, first convert the
>      unqualified type and then apply the qualifiers.  */
>   if ((TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAGS (type) & (TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_CONST
> 				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_VOLATILE
> 				     | TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG_RESTRICT)) != 0)
>     return convert_qualified (context, type);
> 
>   switch (TYPE_CODE (type))
>    {
>       /* Don't need to handle TYPE_CODE_STRUCT and TYPE_CODE_UNION
>          here.  */
>    }

I can change it that way but when you ask "isn't cleaner" then no, I think
your hack is even a bit more ugly than my ugly hack.

There should be two virtual methods, one pure for 'switch (TYPE_CODE (type))'
and the other one checking TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAG* in superclass overriden only by
TYPE_CODE_STRUCT and TYPE_CODE_UNION (there would be no TYPE_CODE_*, though).


> Otherwise, the patch looks good to me.

OK, thanks.  Just it causes a regression with latest GCC now as I have asked
Alexandre Oliva off-list how it really should be fixed.


Jan


  reply	other threads:[~2015-07-01 13:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-18 17:28 [patch] " Jan Kratochvil
2015-05-16 13:26 ` [patchv2] " Jan Kratochvil
2015-06-30 19:57   ` Joel Brobecker
2015-07-01 10:32   ` Pedro Alves
2015-07-01 11:21   ` Yao Qi
2015-07-01 13:24     ` Jan Kratochvil [this message]
2015-07-01 13:54       ` Pedro Alves
2015-07-01 14:10         ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-07-01 14:59           ` Pedro Alves
2015-07-01 15:12             ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-07-01 15:24               ` Pedro Alves
2015-07-01 15:29                 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-07-01 15:35                   ` Pedro Alves
2015-07-01 16:07                     ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-07-01 16:16                       ` Pedro Alves
2015-07-01 14:06       ` Yao Qi
2015-07-02 12:34       ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-07-04 17:11         ` [patchv3] " Jan Kratochvil
2015-07-08  9:29           ` Pedro Alves
2015-07-08 12:51             ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150701132406.GA13975@host1.jankratochvil.net \
    --to=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=pmuldoon@redhat.com \
    --cc=qiyaoltc@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox