[tree-ssa] Another DFA fix

[law at redhat dot com]

Oh how I wish I had gotten involved in this code earlier, then I might
know why we have this tendency to ignore operands of ADDR_EXPRs....

While analyzing testsuite failures for my useless crud removal pass
I ran into this little gem....  Consider this code:

        
bar (d)
{
  struct foo * u.1;
  struct foo u;
  
  u.d = d_1;
  u.1_4 = &u_3;
  return (int)u.1_4;
}

The statement u.1_4 = &u_3 has no uses or vuses because the DFA code
ignores most ADDR_EXPR expressions.  That seems, well, wrong.

Anyway, since the statement in question has no operands, there uses of
u, so DCE deleted the u.d = d1 statement.  Also since there were no uses
of u, the crud zapper deleted struct foo u.

This triggered an abort because, well, we'd removed the variable u,
but it still had a use in the program.


This fixes the problem, but I'd really like Diego to chime in with
the original rationale behind ignoring operands of ADDR_EXPRs so that
we can:

  1. See if the rationale makes sense

  2. Document whatever behavior we implement.



	* tree-dfa.c (get_expr_operands): Do not ignore operands of an
	an ADDR_EXPR if it is a PARM_DECL or VAR_DECL.

Index: tree-dfa.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/Attic/tree-dfa.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.4.102
diff -c -3 -p -r1.1.4.102 tree-dfa.c
*** tree-dfa.c	30 Apr 2003 16:30:59 -0000	1.1.4.102
--- tree-dfa.c	30 Apr 2003 17:22:07 -0000
*************** get_expr_operands (stmt, expr_p, flags, 
*** 337,343 ****
         	 of interest.  */
        if (subcode != COMPONENT_REF
  	  && subcode != INDIRECT_REF
! 	  && subcode != ARRAY_REF)
  	return;
  
        /* Avoid recursion.  */
--- 337,345 ----
         	 of interest.  */
        if (subcode != COMPONENT_REF
  	  && subcode != INDIRECT_REF
! 	  && subcode != ARRAY_REF
! 	  && subcode != PARM_DECL
! 	  && subcode != VAR_DECL)
  	return;
  
        /* Avoid recursion.  */