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: [PATCH] Fix PR27529, a step towards fixing PR27039

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 29 Aug 2006 09:40:03 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR27529, a step towards fixing PR27039
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605102146130.4599@nyjnma.fhfr.qr> <17652.22130.861875.355474@zebedee.pink> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608291702540.4322@nyjnma.fhfr.qr> <17652.23978.30339.387078@zebedee.pink>

Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

> Me either.  However, there is some remarkably similar code in
> fold_cond_expr_with_comparison().

That code is also bogus in the current regime and should be
represented using different tree codes or using some sort of flag on
the tree.  (LVALUE_EXPR, maybe?)

It does seem like a new tree code is the right approach.

For the moment, if it helps, I'll approve your patch to go onto the
4.2 branch, when it is created.  The patch shouldn't go into mainline.

Thanks.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR27529, a step towards fixing PR27039
  - From: Andrew Haley

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR27529, a step towards fixing PR27039
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR27529, a step towards fixing PR27039
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR27529, a step towards fixing PR27039
  - From: Andrew Haley

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