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: [PATCH] Dispose of non-gimplifier users of is_gimple_tmp_var

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden at fastmail dot fm>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:02:24 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Dispose of non-gimplifier users of is_gimple_tmp_var
References: <20040816131921.GA9646@fastmail.fm><1092664117.24081.97.camel@localhost.localdomain><684F5022-EF8C-11D8-8B9A-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org>

Daniel Berlin writes:
 > 
 > On Aug 16, 2004, at 9:48 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
 > 
 > > On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 09:19, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
 > >
 > >> The motivation here is that we're going to have to change the 
 > >> semantics
 > >> of is_gimple_tmp_var and possibly break it into two or more separate
 > >> functions.  Getting rid of totally spurious uses simplifies this 
 > >> process.
 > >>
 > > I guess I'm missing something.  Though what you describe sounds
 > > reasonable, what's wrong with is_gimple_tmp_var as it exists today?
 > 
 > It's abusing DECL_ARTIFICIAL.

Yeah.  It breaks if it finds a var that happens to have
DECL_ARTIFICIAL set.  This broke the Java gimplifier, for example.

Andrew.

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Dispose of non-gimplifier users of is_gimple_tmp_var
  - From: Nathanael Nerode
- Re: [PATCH] Dispose of non-gimplifier users of is_gimple_tmp_var
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: [PATCH] Dispose of non-gimplifier users of is_gimple_tmp_var
  - From: Daniel Berlin

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