This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: simplify_subreg issues
- To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: simplify_subreg issues
- From: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:13:12 +0200
- Cc: mark at codesourcery dot com, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, jh at suse dot cz, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20010611190907Y.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <200106120256.TAA04600@geoffk.org>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 07:56:16PM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote:
> The underlying problem is that 'volatile' doesn't make sense in
> conjunction with 'complex'. We can't do complex loads or stores.
If I understand it correctly, then 'volatile' only makes sense for
memory references, so
TYPE volatile i;
makes no sense. Only
TYPE volatile* ptr;
makes sense.
Secondly, complex only makes sense on non-pointers (and not even in all
cases), so
TYPE* complex ptr;
makes no sense. Only
complex TYPE i;
makes sense.
Nevertheless, I can easily combine these two:
complex TYPE volatile* ptr;
makes sense imho. And then I don't understand your remark anymore :/
--
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>