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: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
Cc: GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:34 -0800
Subject: Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
References: <F0209661-68A9-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com> <20040226230842.GA28463@redhat.com> <jmwu698lfu.fsf@desire.geoffk.org>

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 03:34:13PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> As I commented, will this really work?

I guess not.

For c89, the squishy rules (if it looks ok, it's ok) means
that we do have transitivity, and so things really ought to
be ok to just chain together the TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT lists.

For c99, we can't.  I guess we'll need some sort of language
callback in order to determine type compatibility.  Given that,
it seems silly to treat c89 and c99 differently.


r~

References:
- IMA vs tree-ssa
  - From: Dale Johannesen
- Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
  - From: Geoff Keating

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