This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Where's the Steengaard stuff supposed to go?
- From: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 21 Jul 2002 09:45:01 +0200
- Subject: Re: Where's the Steengaard stuff supposed to go?
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207202116460.9887-100000@dberlin.org>
Op zo 21-07-2002, om 03:24 schreef Daniel Berlin:
> On 21 Jul 2002, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > Daniel,
> >
> > I cannot build G95 anymore since you commited the Steengaard alias
> > analysis stuff. If I link to tree-alias-steen.o, I get a number of
> > errors about a missing function 'create_tmp_alias_var()',
>
> Errr, this is defined in *-simplify.c, prototyped in tree-simple.h.
> Any SIMPLE implementation is going to need it to do alias analysis, we
> need to be able to create VAR_DECL's that don't get inserted into the
> binding level (because we have to create them for intermediate results of
> expressions that don't directly store, etc, so we end up with possibly a
> lot of them).
Ah, OK. I couldn't tell from tree-simple.h. If there are more functions
like this (I mean functions defined in a tree-* header, but defined in
*-simplify for each front end), shouldn't we make them langhooks?
Greetz
Steven