This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Work around for an unfortunate fold-const vs. tree-optimizer interaction
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Steven Bosschner <stevenb at suse dot de>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:45:34 -0800
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Work around for an unfortunate fold-const vs. tree-optimizer interaction
- References: <1068154239.7012.40.camel@p4> <200311102032.hAAKWJhj020356@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:32:19PM -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> So what I think this is saying is that long term the expanders need to
> handle generic and that they should not assume gimple.
> Just wanted to be explicit! :-)
Well, I think we should be more explicit than this. To wit, I think
that certain constructs should be required to be lowered: switch_expr,
try_finally_expr, bind_expr, loops. That's where the ugliest bits of
our expanders are, IMO.