This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Test for invalid optimization of ?: lvalue expression

To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at cygnus dot com>
Subject: Re: Test for invalid optimization of ?: lvalue expression
From: Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>
Date: 30 May 2000 00:54:12 -0700
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <orog5q7o6w.fsf@saci.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <orog5q62il.fsf@saci.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>

This doesn't seem like a proper fix to me; obfuscating the trees to defeat
fold just hides the problem.  A better solution might be to turn the
expression in question into

  *((I != J) ? &I : &J)

How does the C frontend deal with using a cond_expr as an lvalue?

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Test for invalid optimization of ?: lvalue expression
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

References:
- Test for invalid optimization of ?: lvalue expression
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Test for invalid optimization of ?: lvalue expression
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]