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


On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 04:56, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 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...
> 
We need to have a way of telling whether an ARRAY_REF needs a mem slot
in needs_to_live_in_memory.  Right now, we're simply returning true for
any ARRAY_TYPE.

If we can reliably set TREE_ADDRESSABLE *only* on those arrays that
truly need to live in memory, then we could change the test to
(TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (t)) == ARRAY_TYPE && TREE_ADDRESSABLE (t))


Diego.


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