Re: [PATCH] PR14841 and PR15838

[Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>]

On Tuesday 31 August 2004 23:16, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 11:08:56PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > ... but why TREE_STATIC, is TREE_READONLY not enough?
>
> No.
>
> > Well, you want me to introduce yet _another_ predicate?
>
> Either that or restructure the code.  But yes, I do not want
> two pieces of code that check for the same thing.

I'll be glad to do so, but it could take a few weeks since I'm
gone traveling after today.

> > > You're not handling nested components/arrays.  Try
> > >
> > > 	x = a.b.c.d.e[2].f[4].g
> >
> > Neither does expr.c as far as I can tell.  This was supposed to
> > fix just the deficiency that expr.c handles the simpler cases,
> > which are a major source of missed optimizations in gcc itself,
> > with checking enabled.
>
> With only a slight rearrangement in the code that you already
> have, you can fix this deficiency.  I don't think I'm asking
> too much.

I never said you did.  I'll just have to figure out how.

Gr.
Steven