This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Incomplete TREE_CONSTANT-propagation in build() ?
On Nov 4, 2003, at 5:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
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 :-)
Perhaps Joseph would be make a good author thereof :-), since he seems
to understand the nature of the duality...
| 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.
This is based on the Motorola AltiVec spec. When I make the patch, I'll
be sure to update the existing "AldyVec" documentation to reflect the
new syntax; feel free to hold me to this. :-)
--Zem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2K
Mac OS X Compiler Group Cupertino, CA USA 95014-2083
Apple Computer, Inc. +1.408.974.6229 Fax .5477