Re: RFC: gfc_simplify_transfer implementation.

[François-Xavier Coudert <Francois-Xavier dot Coudert at lcp dot u-psud dot fr>]

> > Meanwhile, the target-memory.c functions are in a sort of  
> > preliminary state which assumes that the host and target have the  
> > same memory representations, and thus don't work correctly on  
> > cross-compilers. They are, however, written in a way that should  
> > make it relatively easy to improve them and include proper target  
> > representations.  And they do function properly for a native  
> > compiler.
>
> Have you or Paul actually checked that they don't work correctly on  
> cross-compilers? I think that at least the integer and real  
> constants are stored in tress in host endianess (and thus, probably  
> the logical and complex also work)...

As soon as I sent the mail, I understood why this sentence is  
completely wrong. But anyway, is there any reason that the following  
wouldn't work for taking care of memory representation:
  - create a constant tree from the constant value
  - fold_convert the value into the other type of similar length
  - read back the value from the constant tree

I guess it's not low overhead, but that way we're relying on the  
middle-end to get the target memory representation right in all  
cases :)  And it's probably not so hard to code and test, and then  
you can refine it if you want to.

FX

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature