This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Use of build_binary_op
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 07:01:35PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 06:20 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
>
> >I notice you've started using build_binary_op inside tree-ssa-pre.c,
> >specifically in and around calculate_increment.
> >
> Yup.
>
> >This causes me problems with the Fortran 95 frontend because
> >build_binary_op
> >is a c-specific function,
> Not quite.
> It exists in the ada frontend as well.
>
Yes, but it is redefined for following Ada's semantics (in ada/utils2.c),
as well as C++ redefines it (in cp/typeck.c).
> >and the F95 frontend doesn't currently contain an
> >implementation of this. A straight copy/paste of the C implementation
> >isn't
> >possible because this pulls in lots of other c-specific code.
>
> >Is it really necessary to use build_bunary_op, or are you just using
> >it as
> >shorthand for build(code, type, op1, op1) ?
> I could do it that way, if you like.
>
> > If this is the case I'd like to
> >request that a language independat function be used for this purpose.
> >If
> >not how much of the functionality of build_binary_op do I need to
> >implement?
> >
> I'll use build, don't worry about it.
>
I think we'll need an interface for building GIMPLE trees instead of using generic
functions as build or build1 ...
Sebastian