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: General question about types of tree expressions

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: law at redhat dot com
Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:17:22 -0500
Subject: Re: General question about types of tree expressions
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502091535010.16464-100000@alwazn.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> <1107966921.12699.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 09:35 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 15:38 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
> > Ok, so PLUS_EXPR (int, short, unsigned int) is invalid - though the
> > middle-end seems to be "happy" which such node and checking does not
> > catch it.  For example
> Traditionally the middle-end has been very "accepting" of
> different types in tree nodes.  While being "accepting" was
> OK in the past, I don't think it's what we want to be doing
> in the future.
> 

The document i've been working on defining the semantics of gimple
operations specifically states that all binary and unary operators must
have operands of the same type.

I've got a verifier that verifies this, and as one would expect, it
catches quite a few "issues" right now.

--Dan

References:
- Re: General question about types of tree expressions
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: General question about types of tree expressions
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

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