This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC] SFTs on complex type

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:49:46 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFC] SFTs on complex type
References: <f2a05f90007407f0ff10cc79d7c86637@physics.uc.edu> <1135881036.7973.20.camel@IBM-82ZWS052TEN.watson.ibm.com>

On Dec 29, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:

Uh, so, if that's a bug, why not fix it?
1. the MTAG_P check could go first, since no memory tag ever has
subvars.

That seems like a good idea, maybe even better is don't ask for the memory tags at all. (I can provide a patch for that).

2. In create_variable_info_for, the field names will now look like
"foo.1" instead of (at the very least) "foo.a".
The name was there for debugging purposes.  If you are going to change
it, at least change it to use the offset.

That part comes from Richard Guenther's patch, maybe he can comment.


Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

References:
- [RFC] SFTs on complex type
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: [RFC] SFTs on complex type
  - From: Daniel Berlin

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]