Live Range Splitting goodbye?

Live Range Splitting goodbye?

[Jim Blandy]

Would anyone mind if I deleted the support for live range splitting?
That would remove the following fields from struct symbol, get rid of
a weird call to read_pc in symtab.c (!!), and a bunch of other stuff.

I believe the GCC code which would emit the sorts of STABS that turn
into these structures has never been contributed to the public sources
anyway.

struct symbol
  {
    ...

    /* Link to a list of aliases for this symbol.
       Only a "primary/main symbol may have aliases.  */
    struct alias_list *aliases;

    /* List of ranges where this symbol is active.  This is only
       used by alias symbols at the current time.  */
    struct range_list *ranges;
  };

Re: Live Range Splitting goodbye?

[Elena Zannoni]

Jim Blandy writes:
 > 
 > Would anyone mind if I deleted the support for live range splitting?
 > That would remove the following fields from struct symbol, get rid of
 > a weird call to read_pc in symtab.c (!!), and a bunch of other stuff.
 > 
 > I believe the GCC code which would emit the sorts of STABS that turn
 > into these structures has never been contributed to the public sources
 > anyway.
 > 
 > struct symbol
 >   {
 >     ...
 > 
 >     /* Link to a list of aliases for this symbol.
 >        Only a "primary/main symbol may have aliases.  */
 >     struct alias_list *aliases;
 > 
 >     /* List of ranges where this symbol is active.  This is only
 >        used by alias symbols at the current time.  */
 >     struct range_list *ranges;
 >   };


Yes it's dead. We already went through this, see the long thread:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-04/msg00002.html

and

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/insight/2002-q2/msg00006.html

Go ahead, kill it.

Thanks
Elena

Re: Live Range Splitting goodbye?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 08:44:24PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> Would anyone mind if I deleted the support for live range splitting?
> That would remove the following fields from struct symbol, get rid of
> a weird call to read_pc in symtab.c (!!), and a bunch of other stuff.
> 
> I believe the GCC code which would emit the sorts of STABS that turn
> into these structures has never been contributed to the public sources
> anyway.
> 
> struct symbol
>   {
>     ...
> 
>     /* Link to a list of aliases for this symbol.
>        Only a "primary/main symbol may have aliases.  */
>     struct alias_list *aliases;
> 
>     /* List of ranges where this symbol is active.  This is only
>        used by alias symbols at the current time.  */
>     struct range_list *ranges;
>   };

Right on all counts.  Please, go ahead!

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: Live Range Splitting goodbye?

[Daniel Berlin]

On 21 Jun 2002, Jim Blandy wrote:

> 
> Would anyone mind if I deleted the support for live range splitting?
> That would remove the following fields from struct symbol, get rid of
> a weird call to read_pc in symtab.c (!!), and a bunch of other stuff.

I asked a few months ago, and no one ever answered when I asked.

> 
> I believe the GCC code which would emit the sorts of STABS that turn
> into these structures has never been contributed to the public sources
> anyway.
Correct.

> 
> struct symbol
>   {
>     ...
> 
>     /* Link to a list of aliases for this symbol.
>        Only a "primary/main symbol may have aliases.  */
>     struct alias_list *aliases;
> 
>     /* List of ranges where this symbol is active.  This is only
>        used by alias symbols at the current time.  */
>     struct range_list *ranges;
>   };
> 
> 

Re: Live Range Splitting goodbye?

[Jim Blandy]

Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> On 21 Jun 2002, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > Would anyone mind if I deleted the support for live range splitting?
> > That would remove the following fields from struct symbol, get rid of
> > a weird call to read_pc in symtab.c (!!), and a bunch of other stuff.
> 
> I asked a few months ago, and no one ever answered when I asked.

Well, you know SMTP, right?  Why not have, say, Andrew Cagney ask the
question?  Or Bill Gates?  :)