Re: [ast-optimizer-branch] More simplification fixes [patch]

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 09:32, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> > add_stmt()    (SIMPLIFIED)
> > {
> >   [ ... ]
> >   if (current_function_decl != 0)
> >     {
> >       T.23 = (
> >       {
> >         union tree_node * __t = current_function_decl;
> >         T.21 = *__t.common.code;
> >         T.22 = T.21 != 30;
> >         if (T.22 != 0)
> >           {
> >             T.17 = "/home/dnovillo/ast-optimizer-branch/src/gcc/c-semantics.c";
> >             T.18 = T.17;
> >             T.19 = "add_stmt";
> >             T.20 = T.19;
> >             tree_check_failed (__t, 30, T.18, 95, T.20);
> >           }
> >         __t;
> >       }
> >       );
> >       T.24 = *T.23.decl.u1.i;
> >       *T.23.decl.u1.i = T.24 + 1;
> >       *T.23.decl.u1.i;
> >     }
> >   return t;
> > }
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > But maybe there's something I'm missing?
> 
> That's an *awfully* complex right hand side of T.23. My question is 
> whether it's valid SIMPLE.
> 
It is valid SIMPLE for the time being.  We have temporarily defined a
statement expression to be in SIMPLE form if the contained statement is
in SIMPLE form.

int
is_simple_unary_expr (t)
     tree t;
{
  [ ... ]

  /* Additions to the original grammar.  FIXME:  Statement-expressions should
     really be expanded.  */
  if (TREE_CODE (t) == STMT_EXPR
      && is_simple_stmt (STMT_EXPR_STMT (t)))
    return 1;

  [ ... ]
}

This is why I mentioned that we need to take them appart when
simplifying.  We need to decide how we are going to deal with the
variables declared inside statement expressions, for instance.


Diego.