This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: IMA vs tree-ssa

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
Cc: law at redhat dot com, GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:52:17 -0800
Subject: Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
References: <200402262347.i1QNlFo1019133@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <47CEA8A4-68B9-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com>

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 04:09:59PM -0800, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> The code in get_expr_operands() expects that *&x will get simplified,
> and aborts if it isn't.  Both suggested fixes run into this.

We cope with *(&x + c) not being folded; we should probably
do the same for *&x.

> Perhaps maybe_fold_offset_to_array_ref ought to ignore the type 
> "mismatch", at least when offset is 0.

I'm *really* uncomfortable with leaving these mismatches around.
We absolutely need to address them in some way that preserves,
rather than hacks around, the type system.

r~

References:
- Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
  - From: law
- Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
  - From: Dale Johannesen

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]