This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH]Incorrect TREE_OVERFLOW copying
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Well, I'd hope to be able to get rid of them but don't know when. Are
there any specific benefits of removing them with regard to sharing
constants (i.e. a significant number of constants differing only in those
flags) or are the benefits simply the general ones of getting rid of
ill-defined and badly used flags? (And are there any other flags used on
INTEGER_CSTs?)
I found negligible INTEGER_CSTS with OVERFLOW &| CONST_OVERFLOW set (7 out
of 30,000). Hence I'm not intending to share those -- the rule will be that
you must copy_node before you set the first flag.
Java has a RADIX10 flag to indicate the input base. I'm going to invert
its meaning, so it does not get set on decimal integers, which will be the
common case.
It'd be nice to see them go, but they are not blocking anything.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk