This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: S/390: Switch to TARGET_GIMPLIFY_VA_ARG_EXPR
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:57:29 -0600
- Subject: Re: S/390: Switch to TARGET_GIMPLIFY_VA_ARG_EXPR
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406170907110.27397-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 09:49, Roger Sayle wrote:
> This is true enough. However until such time as this design flaw is
> resolved, probably via the addition of a non-commutative PTRPLUS_EXPR
FWIW, PTRPLUS_EXPR is currently DOA. The amount of code that is going
to have to change to implement PTRPLUS_EXPR is exceedingly large with
no end in sight. Believe it or not, it may ultimately be easier to
fix fold (I never thought I'd hear myself say that!)
> I believe the current best practice is to type convert both operands
> to the correct same type, keeping the pointer as the first operand and
> the converted integer as the second.
Agreed.
> Is there an open PR for this? Or a thread that has discussed what the
> preferred solution should be? I'd be happy to investigate a patch to
> resolve this issue once and for all.
There was certainly a thread which touched on these issues; however,
it's possible that thread wasn't reflected to the lists.
Jeff