[M3devel] invalid trees, debugging

[Jay K]

This was placing the gcc GTY annotation at the wrong spot, sorry, nevermind.

 - Jay

----------------------------------------
> From: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:02:45 +0000
> Subject: [M3devel] invalid trees, debugging
>
>
> So, when you configure -enable-checking, you get lots of errors.
> This should have been done all along and now we have dug a hole for ourselves to get out of.
> Some of them I've fixed, some of them I've hacked to warnings for now.
> They should all be fixed.
> The errors from -enable-checking have helped me, I believe, restore inlining.
>    I haven't finished testing these changes or commited them yet.
>    It looks like, in particular, we weren't forming RETURN_EXPR correctly.
>    It looks like they don't like merely the NOP_EXPR we wrap the store with.
>
>
> I was also running afoul of the gcc garbage collector.
> That might have been the bigger problem, recent, my fault.
>
>
> Anyway, some of the errors are related to the debugging information.
> I repeat, again, my belief, that the "normal" way of outputing debugging information, is
> to do nothing, except create well formed, well typed trees.
> That lets any debug format work.
> The way as I understand cm3cg works is by tunneling custom information on the side.
>  At least for types. Granted, for line numbers it does the right thing -- good data.
>
>
> Here is an example where the debugging information is wierd:
>
> ../src/M3x86.m3: In function 'M3x86__start_int_proc':
> ../src/M3x86.m3:3291:0: internal compiler error: tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have function_type in compute_record_mode, at stor-layout.c:1559
> Please submit a full bug report,
>
>
> I'm using I386_DARWIN currently and m3gdb doesn't build here.
> At least for that reason, I'm not likely to test m3gdb.
> In some cases I might migt might downgrade the experience with it, to fix these errors.
> I kind of suspect there is a way to tunnel the information without breaking configure -enable-checking.
> But I'm not sure.
>
>
> Hopefully this is ok.
> If people insist I can turn off the checking again on my machine and just proceed with the fixes I have.
>
>
>  - Jay
>