Re: Incomplete TREE_CONSTANT-propagation in build() ?

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Ziemowit Laski <zlaski@apple.com> writes:

| On 4 Nov, 2003, at 16.18, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
| 
| > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >
| >> I'm not sure he was proposing to change TREE_CONSTANT as opposed to
| >> extending it.  My understanding is that he would like to have it cover
| >> more cases.  Or, are you saying that his proposed extension would
| >> break things?
| >
| > I'm suggesting that changing (the value of) TREE_CONSTANT (for these
| > expressions) might break code using it to approximate whether
| > something is
| > a constant expression, because of the dual use at present.
| 
| Yes, I see your point.  However,
|    1) We should fix the dual use anyway :-), and

Certainly I would not object to a patch that makdes the front-ends
more rational :-)

|    2) I suspect that said dual use already occurs in expressions other
| than
|       the 'e'-class expressions.
| 
| At any rate, my AltiVec work is still in progress and it probably won't
| make it into gcc 3.4 :-), so this isn't time critical.  When I have
| something
| more substantive, I'll post a patch for you guys to critique.

"to comment" is fine with me :-).
What I would like to see is syntactic and semantic descriptions and
how they fit with current standards and GNU extensions.

-- Gaby