Re: Where's the Steengaard stuff supposed to go?

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On 21 Jul 2002, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> 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?

I'm kinda debating whether create_tmp_alias_var (and create_tmp_var, for 
that matter), are language independent enough that they should be in 
tree-simple.c.  You tell me.

But, as a general proposition,  yes, langhooks are the right answer.
> 
> Greetz
> Steven
> 
> 
> 
>