This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Misc C++ improvements
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 21 Mar 2003 18:02:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Misc C++ improvements
- References: <200303212250.h2LMokaK006071@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 17:50, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> >Yes, all classes have a nested TYPE_DECL referring to the class itself.
> >But my question remains: Why does the VLA code care about TYPE_DECLs? We
> >should only be interested in the types of local variables, specifically
> >either ARRAY_TYPEs or RECORD_TYPEs which contain FIELD_DECLs of ARRAY_TYPE
> >(or RECORD_TYPE, etc.). There's no reason to look at TYPE_DECLs at all.
> Excellent question. I had assumed Diego checked TYPE_DECLs for a reason.
>
Yes. As I said in my earlier message, I think the reason was
gcc.c-torture/execute/20020412-1.c, or one of the other VLA tests in the
testsuite.
> Looking more closely at the code and the test results I'm confident that
> we shouldn't be looking at TYPE_DECLs.
>
Cool. If looking at TYPE_DECLs was not really necessary, all the
better. If you get new failures in the VLA testcases, then it's the
front end doing funny things and not my overactive imagination :)
Diego.