This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [tree-ssa] TREE_ADDRESSABLE versus ARRAY_TYPE

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:56:00 -0800
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] TREE_ADDRESSABLE versus ARRAY_TYPE
References: <20040111205119.GH1964@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20040111225545.A17280@redhat.com> <20040112094004.GL20577@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:40:04AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> For part of compiler TREE_ADDRESABLE flag means "address of this object
> has been taken" while elsewhere it means "this object must live in
> memory after RTL expansion".  It seems resonable to split these
> meanings into different flags.

I'm comfortable with ARRAY_REF with non-constant index imply 
addressability.  If Diego *really* cares otherwise...


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [tree-ssa] TREE_ADDRESSABLE versus ARRAY_TYPE
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: [tree-ssa] TREE_ADDRESSABLE versus ARRAY_TYPE
  - From: Diego Novillo

References:
- [tree-ssa] TREE_ADDRESSABLE versus ARRAY_TYPE
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: [tree-ssa] TREE_ADDRESSABLE versus ARRAY_TYPE
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [tree-ssa] TREE_ADDRESSABLE versus ARRAY_TYPE
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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